Importância clínica da expressão de p16, Ck7 e achados histológicos na metaplasia imatura do colo uterino
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resumo
Objetivo: Investigar potenciais marcadores moleculares como fatores prognósticos na metaplasia escamosa imatura (ISM) no colo uterino e avaliar o significado clínico de encontrar ISM típico e atípico no epitélio cervical da paciente. Métodos: Foram selecionados 79 casos em estudo transversal retrospectivo (2011-2019). As mulheres com ISM típico ou atípico foram avaliados quanto a critérios sociodemográficos, citológicos e colposcopia. As amostras de biópsia foram avaliadas por análise anatomopatológica e imunohistoquímica, nas quais foi investigada a expressão de P16INK4a (p16) e Ck7. Resultados: A análise citológica mostrou maior frequência de células escamosas atípicas de significado indeterminado com lesões de alto grau. Quanto à análise da colposcopia, ambos os grupos apresentaram resultados semelhantes. A negatividade da expressão de p16 e Ck7 foi associada a um desfecho favorável. Porém, não foram encontradas correlações entre a expressão de p16 e Ck7 e o ISM típico ou atípico. Além disso, foi obtido um valor kappa de 0,087, confirmando a significativa variabilidade interobservador do estudo. Conclusão: A ausência de p16 e Ck7 pode ser utilizada como biomarcadores de prognóstico favorável, mas não mostraram correlações com classificações de ISM típico ou atípico no colo uterino. Logo, deve-se continuar investigando outras metodologias eficazes para triagem desse perfil de pacientes.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Copyright © | Todos os direitos reservados.
A revista detém os direitos autorais exclusivos de publicação deste artigo nos termos da lei 9610/98.
Reprodução parcial
É livre o uso de partes do texto, figuras e questionário do artigo, sendo obrigatória a citação dos autores e revista.
Reprodução total
É expressamente proibida, devendo ser autorizada pela revista.
Referências
2. Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ACCP). Planning and Implementing Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Programs: A Manual for Managers. Seattle: ACCP, 2004.
3. BASU P, et al. Interobserver agreement in the reporting of cervical biopsy specimens obtained from women screened by visual inspection with acetic acid and hybrid capture 2. International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 2013; 32(5): 509–515.
4. DARRAGH TM, 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. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 2012; 136(10): 1266–1297.
5. GIROUX V e RUSTGI AK. Metaplasia: tissue injury adaptation and a precursor to the dysplasia–cancer sequence. Nature Reviews Cancer, 2017; 17(10): 594–604.
6. GONÇALVES JES, et al. The role of p16 as putative biomarker for cervical neoplasia: A controversial issue? MedicalExpress, 2017; 4(6): 170601.
7. GOYAL A e ELLENSON LH, et al. p16 Positive Histologically Bland Squamous Metaplasia of the Cervix: What does It Signify? The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2020; 44(1): 129–139.
8. HERRINGTON CS. (Ed.), & Editorial Board, WHO. C. O. T. WHO Classification of Tumours Female Genital Tumours. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2020; 5: 632. Available from: https ://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/who-classification-of-tumours-female-genital-tumours.
9. HWANG H, et al. Cervical cytology reproducibility and associated clinical and demographic factors. Diagnostic Cytopathology, 2020; 48(1): 35–42.
10. IMAI Y, et al. Reclassification of atypical immature metaplasia of the uterine cervix by combination of nuclear features on hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections without auxiliary immunohistochemistry. Human Pathology, 2022; 129: 113–22.
11. IRANPOUR M, et al. Expression of P63, P16 and CK17 in Atypical Squamous Metaplasia and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Iranian Journal of Pathology, 2021; 16(2): 181.
12. KOLIOPOULOS G, et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017; 8(8): 8587.
13. KRISHNAMURTHY A e RAMSHANKAR V. Current Status and Future Perspectives of Molecular Prevention Strategies for Cervical Cancers. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2020; 11(4): 752–61.
14. LI Y, et al. A Comparative Study on the Accuracy and Efficacy Between Dalton and CINtec® PLUS p16/Ki-67 Dual Stain in Triaging HPV-Positive Women. Frontiers in Oncology, 2022; 11: 815213.
15. LIKHITA K, et al. Molecular and Potential Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Cervical Carcinoma: A Review. Asian Pac Environ Cancer, 2024; 7(1): 113–117.
16. MALPICA A, et al. Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. Gynecologic Oncology, 2005; 99(3): 38-52.
17. MOKHTAR GA, et al. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: cytohistologic correlation study with diagnostic pitfalls. Acta Cytologica, 2008; 52(2): 169–177.
18. POPIEL-KOPACZYK A, et al. The Expression of Testin, Ki-67 and p16 in Cervical Cancer Diagnostics. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 2023; 45(1): 490.
19. PRENDIVILLE W e SANKARANARAYANAN R. Colposcopy and Treatment of Cervical Precancer. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2017. (IARC Technical Report, No. 45.) Chapter 2, Anatomy of the uterine cervix and the transformation zone. Available from: https ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568392/.
20. REGAUER S e REICH O. CK17 and p16 expression patterns distinguish (atypical) immature squamous metaplasia from high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III). Histopathology, 2007; 50(5): 629–635.
21. SAKANE J, et al. Aberrant DNA methylation of DLX4 and SIM1 is a predictive marker for disease progression of uterine cervical low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Diagnostic Cytopathology, 2015; 43(6): 462–470.
22. SEKAR, PKC, et al. The future of cervical cancer prevention: advances in research and technology. In Exploration of Medicine, 2024; 5(3): 384–400.
23. SELLORS JW e SANKARANARAYANAN R. Colposcopy and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a beginners’ manual. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2003. Available from: https ://screening.iarc.fr/colpo.php.
24. SIEGEL, RL, et al. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2024; 74(1): 12–49.
25. VAN DER MAREL J, et al. Oncogenic human papillomavirus-infected immature metaplastic cells and cervical neoplasia. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 2014; 38(4): 470–479.
26. WU Y, et al. Significance of p16/Ki-67 double immunocytochemical staining in cervical cytology ASCUS, LSIL, and ASC-H. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi, 2017; 52(11): 734–739.
27. YAN Q, et al. Expression of CK7, CK19 and p16 in HPV-mediated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. PeerJ, 2024; 12: 18286.