Prognostic relevance of Ki-67 and P16/INK4a markers in histological diagnosis of cervical dysplasia

Purpose of the study. To determine the quantitative parameters of the molecular markers Ki‑67 and p16/INK4a at CIN 1–3 and to establish the possibility of using them to improve the quality of diagnosis by histological samples.

Patients and methods. Biopsy material of the cervix was studied in 71 patients who were carriers of HPV infection. Immunohistochemical method (IHC) in biopsy specimens determined the expression of Ki‑67 and p16/INK4a markers.

Results. According to the results of a standard histological examination, the distribution of patientsinto groups occurred as follows: CIN 1–18, in CIN 2–39, in CIN 3–14 patients. It was found that the expression of the studied markers is associated with the severity of dysplastic changes in the tissue of the cervix. By the studied marker, the most characteristic molecular profiles for the degrees of dysplasia were determined: CIN1 – Ki‑67–15–25%, p16/INK4a 10–15%; CIN2 – Ki‑67–70–80%, p16/INK4a – 65–70%; CIN3 – Ki‑67–85–90%, p16/INK4a – 90–95%. Heterogeneity was revealed in the expression of these markersin the CIN 2 group: in 7 cases (22,6%), the molecular profile corresponded to CIN 1, in 1 case (3,6%) to CIN 3. Clinical examples of using the IHC profile to clarify the degree of CIN are given.

Conclusion. The use of an IHC study with Ki‑67 and p16/INK4a, in addition to the standard histological examination, makes it possible to objectify the initial diagnosis of the degree of CIN, as well as to identify patients with a high and low risk of developing severe injuries. This is especially true for the CIN2 group, the most problematic in terms of histological evaluation and tactics of clinical management of patients. The use of IHC in the initial diagnosis will contribute to: improving the information content of multiple aimed and loop excisional biopsies; reduction in relapse due to inadequate treatment; eliminating the unreasonable use of such a traumatic method as conization (especially in women of childbearing age).

1. The status of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2018. Edited by Kaprin AD, Starinskii VV, Petrova GV. Мoscow: 2019, 236 p. (In Russian).

2. Wyber R, Vaillancourt S, Perry W, Mannava P, Folaranmi T, Celi LA. Big data in global health: improving health in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Mar 1; 93 (3):203–208. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.14.139022

3. Lowy DR. HPV vaccination to prevent cervical cancer and other HPV-associated disease: from basic science to effective interventions. J ClinInvest. 2016 Jan; 126 (1):5–11. https://doi. org/10.1172/JCI85446

4. Briko NI, Lopukhov PD. Need to control HPV-associated diseases. Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention 2017; 16 (2 (93)):10–15. (In Russian).

5. Mezhevitinova EA, Abakarova PR, KhlebkovaYuS. Precancerous cervical lesions. Medical Council.2016; (12):112–118. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21518/2079–701X 2016–12–112–118

6. Committee on Practice Bulletins Gynecology. Practice Bulletin No. 168: Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128 (4): e111–130. https://doi. org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001708

7. Serova OF, Zarochentseva NV, Vazhnova VM, Kesh'yan LV. Pregnancy in women after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Effective Pharmacotherapy. 2010; (1):28–32. (In Russian).

8. Badretdinova FF, Glebova NN, Korotkova LA, Khasanov AG, Trubin VB. Obstetric trauma and cicatricial deformity of the cervix. some controversial issues of the problem (literature review). Scientific Review Medical Sciences. 2016; (5):23–31. (In Russian).

9. Guidelines for outpatient care in obstetrics and gynecology. Edited by V.N. Serova, G. T. Sukhikh, V.N. Prilepsky, V. E. Radzinsky. 2nd edition.M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2016. (In Russian).

10. Monthly monitoring of the socio-economic situation and well-being of the population: 2015 – November 2018, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; under the editorship of T.M. Maleva. 2018. (In Russian).

11. Hebbar A, Murthy VS. Role of p16/INK4a and Ki 67 as specific biomarkers for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: An institution al study. J Lab Physicians. 2017 Jun; 9 (2):104–110. https://doi. org/10.4103/0974–2727.199630

12. Bergeron C, Ikenberg H, Sideri M, Denton K, Bogers J, Schmidt D, et al. Prospective evaluation of p16/Ki 67 dual-stained cytology for managing women with abnormal Papanicolaou cytology: PALMS study results. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Jun; 123 (6):373– 381. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21542

13. Branca M, Ciotti M, Giorg C, Santini D, Di Bonito L, Costa S, et al. Predicting high-risk human papillomavirus infection, progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and prognosis of cervical cancer with a panel of 13 biomarkers tested in multivariate modeling. Int.J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2008; 27 (2):265–273. https://doi. org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e318159cbc0.

14. Trukhacheva NV. Medical Statistics: A Training Manual. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2017. (In Russian).

15. US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Screening for Cervical Cancer. JAMA. 2018;320 (7):674–686. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10897