Assessment of fluorescence in situ hybridization and hybrid capture 2 analyses of cervical cytology specimens diagnosed as low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion for the detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Jesse S Voss, Benjamin R Kipp, Michael B Campion, Irina A Sokolova, Michael R Henry, Kevin C Halling, Amy C Clayton
{"title":"Assessment of fluorescence in situ hybridization and hybrid capture 2 analyses of cervical cytology specimens diagnosed as low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion for the detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.","authors":"Jesse S Voss, Benjamin R Kipp, Michael B Campion, Irina A Sokolova, Michael R Henry, Kevin C Halling, Amy C Clayton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN 2+) in patients with a cytologic diagnosis of low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Residual samples from 115 LSIL-diagnosed cervical cytology specimens were evaluated by high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) HC2 testing and FISH using biotin-labeled probes to HR-HPV and chromosomal probes to 3q26 (TERC) and 8q24 (CMYC). A cervical biopsy diagnosis of CIN 2+ was considered as evidence of high grade disease.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The positive and negative predictive values of HC2 and FISH for detecting patients with CIN 2+ were 32% vs. 37% and 100% vs. 93%, respectively. The sensitivities of HC2 and FISH for CIN 2+ were not significantly different (100% vs. 90%, p = 0.25), while the specificity of HC2 was significantly lower than that of FISH (28% vs. 48%, p=0.003). FISH diagnosed fewer specimens as positive as compared to HC2 (62% vs. 79%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These preliminary data suggest that FISH testing may be useful for determining which patients with LSIL are most likely to have CIN 2+ on clinical follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":76995,"journal":{"name":"Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology","volume":"32 3","pages":"121-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To assess Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN 2+) in patients with a cytologic diagnosis of low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL).
Study design: Residual samples from 115 LSIL-diagnosed cervical cytology specimens were evaluated by high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) HC2 testing and FISH using biotin-labeled probes to HR-HPV and chromosomal probes to 3q26 (TERC) and 8q24 (CMYC). A cervical biopsy diagnosis of CIN 2+ was considered as evidence of high grade disease.
Results: The positive and negative predictive values of HC2 and FISH for detecting patients with CIN 2+ were 32% vs. 37% and 100% vs. 93%, respectively. The sensitivities of HC2 and FISH for CIN 2+ were not significantly different (100% vs. 90%, p = 0.25), while the specificity of HC2 was significantly lower than that of FISH (28% vs. 48%, p=0.003). FISH diagnosed fewer specimens as positive as compared to HC2 (62% vs. 79%).
Conclusion: These preliminary data suggest that FISH testing may be useful for determining which patients with LSIL are most likely to have CIN 2+ on clinical follow-up.