ArticleDer Pathologe2012
[Diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasias].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosing and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) are part of the routine practice of pathologists. However, discriminating between reactive changes and CIN1 and determining the different degrees of CIN may be challenging. Aim of this study was the evaluation of the proliferation markers Ki-67 and Mcm2 as well as p16 for their potential to aid in the assessment of CIN. 297 samples of normal epithelium, CIN1, CIN2, and CIN3 were assessed for expression of the above mentioned markers using tissue microarrays. There was an increase in the expression of Ki67 and Mcm2 from normal epithelium, CIN1, CIN2 to CIN3 (p<0.001 for both markers). Ki-67 was the most useful marker in differentiating between normal epithelium and CIN1. The number of p16-positive cases was 7% in CIN1, 46% in CIN2 and 86% in CIN3. There were no p16-positive cases in the group with normal epithelium. In order to grade CIN1 vs. CIN2 a combination of Ki-67 and p16 was helpful. Cases with a proliferation rate of <25% assessed with Ki-67 were most likely CIN1 (sensitivity 91.7%, specificity: 54.3%, positive predictive value: 73.3%, negative predictive value 82.6%). P16 was the most helpful marker in distinguishing between CIN2 and CIN 3 as p16 negative cases were more likely to belong into the CIN2 category. In summary, the histopathological assessment of cervical biopsies is based on H&E-stained slides. However, Ki-67 and p16 can be helpful in diagnosing and grading cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.