The Ki-67 labeling index is not a useful predictor for the follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1

F. Alameda, P. Fuste, S. Boluda, L. Ferrer, T. Baro, L. Mariñoso, G. Mancebo, R. Carreras, S. Serrano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. Our aim was to determine whether the Ki-67 immunostaining pattern, present on diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), predicts the change from low-grade to high-grade CIN over a 2-year period after diagnosis. Materials and Methods. Of 59 cervical biopsy samples from 59 patients diagnosed as having cervical CIN, 35 were diagnosed as CIN 1 and 24 were diagnosed as CIN 2 or CIN 3. The Ki-67 immunostain showed immunopositive cells in the upper two thirds of the epithelium in all specimens. Two hundred nuclei were counted in 25 high-power fields in each specimen, including all of the epithelial layers, to determine the mean number of Ki-67-positive cells. In situ hybridization was used to demonstrate and type human papillomavirus. The χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Student t test, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p < .05. Results. The mean Ki-67 labeling index for CIN 1, CIN 2, CIN 3, and CIN 2,3 were, respectively, 32.5%, 43.2%, 53.2%, and 47.8%. The statistical study showed significant differences between CIN 1 versus CIN 2, CIN 1 versus CIN 3, and CIN 1 versus CIN 2,3. For CIN 1, the mean Ki-67 labeling index was 32.8% when the lesion disappeared and was 34.6% for persisting lesions. There was no statistically significant difference. Conclusions. Ki-67 labeling index did not predict persisting CIN 1.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)313-316
JournalJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2004

Keywords

  • CIN1
  • CIN2
  • CIN3
  • Human papillomavirus, Ki-67 LI

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Ki-67 labeling index is not a useful predictor for the follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this