ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2021
Classifying Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2 Based on LAST Recommendations.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions in People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review of Treatment Outcomes.Cancers · 2026Review
- Anal Dysplasia: A Review of Pathology with Focus on Current Terminology, Pathologic Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Challenges.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026Review
- Intraepithelial CD15 infiltration identifies high-grade anal dysplasia in people with HIV.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Screening for precancerous anal lesions linked to human papillomaviruses: French recommendations for clinical practice.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Review
- Characterisation of anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer in HIV-positive men by immunohistochemical markers p16, Ki-67, HPV-E4 and DNA methylation markers.International journal of cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) recommendations classify human papillomavirus-associated squamous lesions into low- and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs/HSILs). Our study aimed to assess interobserver agreement among 6 experienced pathologists in assigning 40 anal lesions previously diagnosed as anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (AIN 2) to either HSIL or non-HSIL categories.
methodsAgreement based on photomicrographs of H&E alone or H&E plus p16 immunohistochemistry was calculated using κ coefficients.
resultsAgreement was fair based on H&E alone (κ = 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.52). Adding p16 improved agreement to moderate (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62). On final diagnosis, 21 cases (53%) had unanimous diagnoses, and 19 (47%) were divided. When designating p16 results as positive or negative, agreement was excellent (κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95). Among variables (staining location, extent, and intensity), staining of the basal/parabasal layers was a consistent feature in cases with consensus for positive results (20/20). Of the 67 H&E diagnoses with conflicting p16 results, participants modified 32 (48%), downgrading 23 HSILs and upgrading 9 non-HSILs.
conclusionsAlthough p16 increased interobserver agreement, disagreement remained considerable regarding intermediate lesions. p16 expression, particularly if negative, can reduce unwarranted HSIL diagnoses and unnecessary treatment.
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.