Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To establish diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of a diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN 3) in menopausal women on routinely stained hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides and compare it to slides processed for p16 and Ki-67. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Confirmed cases of CIN 3 and benign atrophic changes were reviewed independently by 4 pathologists. The samples were studied on separate occasions using H&E staining, p16, and Ki-67. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between reviewers or methods were tested for significance using the McNemar test, whereas differences in positive and negative predictive values were tested for significance using a marginal probability generalized linear model for agreement. RESULTS: Sensitivity was high for H&E (93.3%-100%) and Ki-67 (93.3%-100%) and lower for p16 (70.0%-90.0%). Intraobserver variability was also lower for p16 (76.7% vs 90.0%, although this difference was not statistically significant, p = .219). p16 agreement, however, for CIN 3 is significantly lower than that for atrophy (76.7% vs 97.4%, p = .018). CONCLUSIONS: Routine histopathologic diagnosis of CIN 3 in menopausal women is highly accurate and reproducible. Both H&E and Ki-67 are useful immunohistochemical stains in helping differentiate atrophy from high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions in postmenopausal cervical biopsies. There may be more disagreement among readers using p16.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cremer et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: