Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high-risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ lesions of the uterine cervix
Article first published online: 19 OCT 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Limited
Volume 57, Issue 4, pages 580–586, October 2010
How to Cite
Benevolo, M., Terrenato, I., Mottolese, M., Marandino, F., Muti, P., Carosi, M., Rollo, F., Ronchetti, L., Mariani, L., Vocaturo, G. and Vocaturo, A. (2010), Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high-risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ lesions of the uterine cervix. Histopathology, 57: 580–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03674.x
- Issue published online: 19 OCT 2010
- Article first published online: 19 OCT 2010
- Date of submission 24 September 2009 Accepted for publication 15 February 2010
- uterine cervix;
- human papillomavirus;
- cervical intraepithelial neoplasia;
- HPV testing;
- diagnostic biomarkers
Benevolo M, Terrenato I, Mottolese M, Marandino F, Muti P, Carosi M, Rollo F, Ronchetti L, Mariani L, Vocaturo G & Vocaturo A (2010) Histopathology57, 580–586 Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high-risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ lesions of the uterine cervix
Aims: To investigate the clinical role of nm23 expression in identifying both high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) and high-grade cervical lesions or carcinomas [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+)], and to compare it with p16 overexpression, as this latter biomarker has already been reported widely in HR-HPV infected cervical lesions.
Methods and results: Immunohistochemical evaluation of nm23 and p16 in 143 cervical biopsy specimens including negative, low- and high-grade lesions and squamous carcinomas (SC). HR-HPV testing by Digene hybrid capture 2 (HC2) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on the cervico-vaginal samples of the same patients. In detecting CIN2+, p16 was significantly more sensitive and specific than nm23 (96.3% versus 81.8% and 66% versus 36.4%, respectively, both P < 0.0001). Concerning HR-HPV detection by HC2, p16 showed a significantly higher specificity than nm23 (82% versus 47%, P <0.0001), although the sensitivities were comparable (71% versus 76%). We found a significantly direct correlation between nm23 and HC2 findings. However, nm23 expression did not correlate with HPV16/18 infection. In contrast, we observed a significant association between p16 overexpression and HPV16/18 genotypes.
Conclusions: We confirm the diagnostic value of p16 overexpression. Moreover, despite in vitro data regarding the interaction with the HPV-E7 protein, nm23 does not appear to be a more useful biomarker than p16 in identifying CIN2+ or HR-HPV infection.