Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16,HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology

Khazaei, Sdigheh; Izadi, Babak; Mirbahari, Seyed Ghasem; Madani, Seyed Hamid; Malek Khosravi, Shohre; Emami Alagha, Mohsen; Sajadimajd, Soraya

doi:10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5223

Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16,HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology

Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

¹ Molecular Pathology Research Center, Imam Reza University Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

² Molecular Pathology Research Center, Imam Reza University Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sicences, Kermanshah,Iran

³ Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

⁴ Molecular Pathology Research Center, Imam Reza University Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah,Iran

⁵ Obs & Gyn Department, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah,Iran

⁶ Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.

10.22034/APJCP.2016.17.12.5223

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in many populations. While the Pap smear is a well established screening test it suffers from both false-positive and false-negative results in diagnosis of cancers and precancerous states. In this study, immunocytochemistry of the P16 biomarker and HPV-PCR were compared for their diagnostic potential. Materials and methods: In the study, we obtained pairs of specimens from 45 women with cervical dysplasia. One sample was placed in a liquid-based solution, and processed for staining of sections with antibodies to P16. HPV-PCR was performed on the other and the results obtained were analyzed by T-test using SPSS v. 15. Results: Using HPV-PCR 71% of the samples were found to be infected with either HPV 16 or HPV 18, and the rate of infection did not have a statistically significant relationship with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.253). In contrast, with immunocytochemistry evaluation of P16, 64% of the specimens were positive, but the percentage of positive results significantly increased with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.0001). Conclusion: Employment of the P16 marker as an optional test might be preferable over HPV-PCR for cervical dysplasia in our geographical region.

Keywords

Main Subjects