Prognostic Value Of Dna And Mrna E6/e7 Of Human Papillomavirus In The Evolution Of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2.

This study aimed at evaluating whether human papillomavirus (HPV) groups and E6/E7 mRNA of HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 are prognostic of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 outcome in women with a cervical smear showing a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). This cohort study included women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 who were followed up for 12 months, with cervical smear and colposcopy performed every three months. Women with a negative or low-risk HPV status showed 100% CIN 2 regression. The CIN 2 regression rates at the 12-month follow-up were 69.4% for women with alpha-9 HPV versus 91.7% for other HPV species or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). For women with HPV 16, the CIN 2 regression rate at the 12-month follow-up was 61.4% versus 89.5% for other HPV types or HPV-negative status (P < 0.05). The CIN 2 regression rate was 68.3% for women who tested positive for HPV E6/E7 mRNA versus 82.0% for the negative results, but this difference was not statistically significant. The expectant management for women with biopsy-confirmed CIN 2 and previous cytological tests showing LSIL exhibited a very high rate of spontaneous regression. HPV 16 is associated with a higher CIN 2 progression rate than other HPV infections. HPV E6/E7 mRNA is not a prognostic marker of the CIN 2 clinical outcome, although this analysis cannot be considered conclusive. Given the small sample size, this study could be considered a pilot for future larger studies on the role of predictive markers of CIN 2 evolution.

Intraductal Carcinoma Of The Prostate: Interobserver Reproducibility Survey Of 39 Urologic Pathologists.

The diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma (IDC) of the prostate remains subjective because 3 sets of diagnostic criteria are in use. An internet survey was compiled from 38 photomicrographs showing duct proliferations: 14 signed out as high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), 17 IDC, and 7 invasive cribriform/ductal carcinoma. Each image was assessed for the presence of 9 histologic criteria ascribed to IDC. Thirty-nine respondents were asked to rate images as (1) benign/reactive, (2) HGPIN, (3) borderline between HGPIN and IDC, (4) IDC, or (5) invasive cribriform/ductal carcinoma. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.68. There was 70% overall agreement with HGPIN, 43% with IDC, and 73% with invasive carcinoma (P < .001, χ(2)). Respondents considered 19 (50%) of 38 cases as IDC candidates, of which 5 (26%) had a two-thirds consensus for IDC; two-thirds consensus for either borderline or IDC was reached in 9 (47%). Two-thirds consensus other than IDC was reached in the remaining 19 of 38 cases, with 15 supporting HGPIN and 4 supporting invasive carcinoma. Findings that differed across diagnostic categories were lumen-spanning neoplastic cells (P < .001), 2× benign duct diameters (P < .001), duct space contours (round, irregular, and branched) (P < .001), papillary growth (P = .048), dense cribriform or solid growth (both P = .023), and comedonecrosis (P = .015). When the 19 of 38 images that attained consensus for HGPIN or invasive carcinoma were removed from consideration, lack of IDC consensus was most often attributable to only loose cribriform growth (5/19), central nuclear maturation (5/19), or comedonecrosis (3/19). Of the 9 histologic criteria, only 1 retained significant correlation with a consensus diagnosis of IDC: the presence of solid areas (P = .038). One case that attained IDC consensus had less than 2× duct enlargement yet still had severe nuclear atypia and nucleomegaly. Six fold nuclear enlargement was not significant (P = .083), although no image had both 6× nuclei and papillary or loose cribriform growth: a combination postulated as sufficient criteria for IDC. Finally, 20.5% of respondents agreed that an isolated diagnosis of IDC on needle biopsy warrants definitive therapy, 20.5% disagreed, and 59.0% considered the decision to depend upon clinicopathologic variables. Although IDC diagnosis remains challenging, we propose these criteria: a lumen-spanning proliferation of neoplastic cells in preexisting ducts with a dense cribriform or partial solid growth pattern. Solid growth, in any part of the duct space, emerges as the most reproducible finding to rule in a diagnosis of IDC. Comedonecrosis is a rarer finding, but in most cases, it should rule in IDC. Duct space enlargement to greater than 2× the diameter of the largest, adjacent benign spaces is usually present in IDC, although there may be rare exceptions.