ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2020
Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2020. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical conization is a standard diagnostic method for precancerous lesions. However, its results could be negative despite an initially positive punch biopsy. The present study aimed to re-evaluate pathological biopsies with Ki-67 and p16 immunostaining to assess the diagnostic accuracy of punch biopsies.
methodsThis retrospective study performed in Motahhari Clinic and Shahid Faghihi Hospital, (Shiraz, Iran). 88 punch and cone biopsy slides from 2007-2016 were re-evaluated by two pathologists, and the results were compared with the original diagnoses. Agreement between the initial diagnoses and re-evaluations and between our pathologists were assessed with the kappa coefficient. Twenty-two negative conization results after positive punch biopsy were re-sectioned and evaluated with Ki-67 and p16 immunostaining.
resultsThe overall agreement (kappa) between the primary punch diagnoses by the original pathologists and those made in the present study (by the first and second pathologists) before immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was 0.33 and 0.43, respectively. The kappa coefficient between punch biopsy diagnoses by the first and second pathologists before IHC staining was 0.73, while it increased to one after IHC staining with Ki-67 and p16. Out of the 22 specimens with the positive punch and negative cone biopsies on initial diagnosis, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was not confirmed in 11 specimens by our pathologists after IHC staining with Ki-67 and p16. These cases were reclassified as transitional metaplasia or acute/chronic cervicitis.
conclusionPunch biopsy can be misdiagnosed as CIN positive, leading to unnecessary conization. The use of Ki-67 and p16 markers as appropriate ancillary tests are recommended.
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.