The role of p16 as putative biomarker for cervical neoplasia: A controversial issue?

INTRODUCTION: Protein p16 has been extensively studied as a potential biomarker for precursor lesions to distinguish cervical Intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) from their mimics. However, the use of p16 as prognostic biomarker for diagnosis of cervical cancer and precancer is controversial. This study focuses on the assessment of peer-reviewed scientific data related to the use of p16 to predict disease severity and its controversies. METHODS: We reviewed publications in MEDLINE/PubMed assessing the clinical, diagnostic and prognostic significance of p16 in CIN and cervical cancer; we included publications from 2009 to June 2017. RESULTS: The use of p16 as a prognostic marker is still unreliable, although it could be a useful tool for diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia lesions with undetermined morphology. Moreover, p16 appears to be a specific marker of high-risk oncogenic HPV infection. CONCLUSION: This review shows the potential utility and drawbacks of p16 for clinical practice and the diagnosis of cervical cancer. Further studies are required to substantiate the role of p16 in conjunction with other more sensitive and specific biomarkers for diagnosing CIN and predicting its progression.

[1]  David Y. Zhang,et al.  Using p16 immunohistochemistry to classify morphologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: correlation of ambiguous staining patterns with HPV subtypes and clinical outcome. , 2017, Human pathology.

[2]  A. Psyrri,et al.  p16, HPV, and Cetuximab: What Is the Evidence? , 2017, The oncologist.

[3]  Kiyong Na,et al.  Stromal p16 Overexpression in Adult Granulosa Cell Tumors of the Ovary. , 2017, Anticancer research.

[4]  M. Hermsen,et al.  Evaluation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology as triage test for high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women , 2017, Modern Pathology.

[5]  R. Simões,et al.  Evaluation of the p16 and Ki-67 Biomarkers as Predictors of the Recurrence of Premalignant Cervical Cancer Lesions after LEEP Conization , 2017, Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia / RBGO - Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  G. Nuovo.  False-positive results in diagnostic immunohistochemistry are related to horseradish peroxidase conjugates in commercially available assays. , 2016, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[7]  D. Schmidt.  [Modern biomarkers for precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix : Histological-cytological correlation and use]. , 2016, Der Pathologe.

[8]  A. Mahajan.  Practical issues in the application of p16 immunohistochemistry in diagnostic pathology. , 2016, Human pathology.

[9]  D. Provance,et al.  HPV vaccines: a controversial issue? , 2016, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[10]  T. Darragh.  The LAST Project and the diagnostic bottom line , 2015, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[11]  M. Stoler,et al.  Risk Stratification By p16 Immunostaining of CIN1 Biopsies: A Retrospective Study of Patients From the Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine Trials , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[12]  F. Abdul-Karim,et al.  p16 Immunohistochemistry is Useful in Confirming High-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (HSIL) in Women With Negative HPV Testing , 2015, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[13]  A. Barua,et al.  Expression of P16 in high-risk human papillomavirus related lesions of the uterine cervix in a government hospital, Malaysia , 2014, Diagnostic Pathology.

[14]  H. Griesser,et al.  Predictive Value of the Combined p16INK4a and Ki-67 Immunocytochemistry in Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions , 2014, Acta Cytologica.

[15]  A. Kaufmann,et al.  Prognostic Significance of Overexpressed p16INK4a in Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis , 2014, PloS one.

[16]  D. Bouron‐Dal Soglio,et al.  Assessment of correlation between p16INK4a staining, specific subtype of human papillomavirus, and progression of LSIL/CIN1 lesions: first comparative study. , 2014, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  Beatriz Bellosillo,et al.  Human papillomavirus detection and p16INK4a expression in cervical lesions: a comparative study. , 2014, Human pathology.

[18]  G. Collina,et al.  Prognostic value of p16‐INK4A protein in women with negative or CIN1 histology result: A follow‐up study , 2014, International journal of cancer.

[19]  G. Nuovo,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Molecular Factors with the Stage of Cervical Cancer in a Brazilian Cohort , 2013, PloS one.

[20]  F. Fulciniti,et al.  Role of p16INK4a Cytology Testing as an Adjunct to Enhance the Diagnostic Specificity and Accuracy in Human Papillomavirus-Positive Women within an Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program , 2012, Acta Cytologica.

[21]  G. Nuovo,et al.  An evaluation of p16(INK4a) expression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia specimens, including women with HIV-1. , 2012, Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz.

[22]  D. Malinowski,et al.  Role of Protein Biomarkers in the Detection of High-Grade Disease in Cervical Cancer Screening Programs , 2012, Journal of oncology.

[23]  F. Angiero,et al.  Diagnostic Implications of L1, p16, and Ki-67 Proteins and HPV DNA in Low-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 2011, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[24]  Justice Jw,et al.  CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM. , 1964 .

[25]  S. Tangjitgamol,et al.  Expression of the p16 and Ki67 in Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions and Cancer. , 2016, Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP.

[26]  P. Martin-Hirsch,et al.  uterine cervix: A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2009 .