Predictive Value of Cytokeratin 7 Immunohistochemistry in Cervical Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion as a Marker for Risk of Progression to a High-grade Lesion

The squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) cell population of the uterine cervix is a discrete epithelial area and the putative source of the majority of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). The SCJ cells can be identified by immunohistochemical (IHC) stains including cytokeratin 7 (CK7). Others have theorized that an SCJ marker–positive low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) has a higher risk for future HSIL compared with an SCJ marker–negative LSIL. This study has 2 aims: first, to refine the definition of a positive CK7 immunostaining pattern in cervical lesions, and, second, to test the hypothesis that CK7 positivity in LSIL indicates higher risk for future HSIL, with both questions addressed using a data set with consensus diagnoses. One hundred cases each of LSIL, moderate HSIL (CIN2), and severe HSIL (CIN3) were stained for CK7, with positivity defined as a diffuse cytoplasmic staining pattern (>5 to 6 contiguous cells); all others were considered negative. Using this model, 34% of CIN1, 45% of CIN2, and 60% of CIN3 were CK7 positive. With follow-up, CK7-positive LSILs were more likely to progress to HSIL compared with CK7-negative LSIL (32% vs. 11%, P=0.05), in concordance with the results of other researchers. This study simplifies cervical CK7 IHC grading into a reproducible system and supports the thesis that CK7 positivity in LSIL is associated with increased risk for future HSIL. Larger cohorts using consensus-diagnosed LSIL are needed to confirm these results before CK7 may be considered for clinical validation.

[1]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  The Interpretive Variability of Cervical Biopsies and Its Relationship to HPV Status , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  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.

[3]  F. McKeon,et al.  Microanatomy of the cervical and anorectal squamocolumnar junctions: a proposed model for anatomical differences in HPV-related cancer risk , 2015, Modern Pathology.

[4]  P. Delvenne,et al.  Unique recurrence patterns of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after excision of the squamocolumnar junction , 2015, International journal of cancer.

[5]  S. Alouini Relevance of random biopsy at the transformation zone when colposcopy is negative. , 2015, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  K. Kuo,et al.  Molecular alterations in endometrial and ovarian clear cell carcinomas: clinical impacts of telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutation , 2015, Modern Pathology.

[7]  J. Berkhof,et al.  The increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia when using a second biopsy at colposcopy. , 2014, Gynecologic oncology.

[8]  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.

[9]  B. Badhe,et al.  Role of p16, CK17, p63, and Human Papillomavirus in Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Distinction From Its Mimics , 2014, International journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  F. Smedts,et al.  Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus–infected Immature Metaplastic Cells and Cervical Neoplasia , 2014, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  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.

[12]  F. McKeon,et al.  Cervical Squamocolumnar Junction–specific Markers Define Distinct, Clinically Relevant Subsets of Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions , 2013, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  Robert P Berkowitz,et al.  2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Follow-up Testing After Colposcopy: Five-Year Risk of CIN 2+ After a Colposcopic Diagnosis of CIN 1 or Less , 2013, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[15]  C. Wheeler,et al.  Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation. , 2013, American journal of clinical pathology.

[16]  F. McKeon,et al.  A novel blueprint for ‘top down’ differentiation defines the cervical squamocolumnar junction during development, reproductive life, and neoplasia , 2013, The Journal of pathology.

[17]  David C Wilbur,et al.  The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. , 2012, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[18]  K. Münger,et al.  A discrete population of squamocolumnar junction cells implicated in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  O. Falcón,et al.  Follow-up after LLETZ: a study of 682 cases of CIN 2-CIN 3 in a single institution. , 2012, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[20]  H. Cejtin,et al.  Factors Influencing Persistence or Recurrence of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia After Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure , 2011, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[21]  M. Stoler,et al.  Using Biomarkers as Objective Standards in the Diagnosis of Cervical Biopsies , 2010, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[22]  M. Hirsch,et al.  Histological ‘progression’ from low (LSIL) to high (HSIL) squamous intraepithelial lesion is an uncommon event and an indication for quality assurance review , 2010, Modern Pathology.

[23]  Jason D. Wright,et al.  Natural history of established low grade cervical intraepithelial (CIN 1) lesions. , 2008, Anticancer research.

[24]  F. Smedts,et al.  CK17 and p16 expression patterns distinguish (atypical) immature squamous metaplasia from high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2008, Histopathology.

[25]  Calum MacAulay,et al.  Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[26]  J. Sturmberg,et al.  Complexity and healthcare organization: a view from the street , 2005, International Journal of Integrated Care.

[27]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  K. Cho,et al.  Atypical immature metaplasia (AIM) of the cervix: is it related to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)? , 1999, Human pathology.

[29]  P W Hamilton,et al.  Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. , 1996, Journal of clinical pathology.