Implementation of p16/Ki67 dual stain cytology in a Danish routine screening laboratory: Importance of adequate training and experience

Anne Hammer, Line W Gustafson, Pia N Christensen, Rikke Brøndum, Berit Andersen, Rikke H Andersen, Mette Tranberg, Anne Hammer, Line W Gustafson, Pia N Christensen, Rikke Brøndum, Berit Andersen, Rikke H Andersen, Mette Tranberg

Abstract

Background: Immunocytochemical staining with p16/Ki67 has been suggested as a promising triage biomarker in cervical cancer screening. As dual staining is a subjective method, proper training may be required to ensure safe implementation in routine laboratories and reduce risk of misclassification. We determined concordance between novice evaluators and an expert, stratified by number of slides reviewed at three reading points.

Methods: The study was conducted at the Department of Pathology, Randers, Denmark. Women were eligible if they were aged ≥45, had been enrolled in one of two ongoing clinical studies, and had a dual stain slide available. Dual staining was performed using the CINtec plus assay. Slides were randomly selected from three reading points at which novice evaluators had reviewed <30, ~300, and ≥500 dual stain slides respectively. Level of concordance was estimated using Cohen's Kappa, κ.

Results: Of 600 eligible slides, 50 slides were selected for review as recommended by the manufacturer. Median age was 68 years (range: 58-74). Overall concordance was good (κ = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.76), with an overall agreement of 84% (95% CI: 70.9%-92.8%). Concordance improved with increasing number of slides reviewed at a given reading point, from a moderate concordance (κ = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.05-0.90) after reviewing <30 slides to a good concordance (κ = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.20-0.88) and a very good concordance (κ = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66-1.00) after reviewing ~300 and ≥500 slides, respectively.

Conclusions: When interpreting dual stain slides from older women, concordance increased slightly as novice evaluators received more training and experience. Although further evaluation is warranted, these findings indicate that a significant amount of training and experience of novice evaluators may be needed to ensure accurate dual stain interpretation in this age group. Future studies should accurately describe training and experience of evaluators to enable a better comparison of concordance and diagnostic accuracy across studies.

Trial registration: NCT04114968 and NCT04298957.

Keywords: cervical cancer screening; cytology; dual stain; implementation; mass screening; training.

Conflict of interest statement

Roche Denmark has provided Cobas HPV‐DNA test kits and CINtec Plus test kits for the study at no cost. According to the contract between Roche and the Department of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark, the manuscript has been sent to Roche for review, but Roche had no influence on the scientific process and no editorial rights pertaining to this manuscript. The authors retained the right to submit the manuscript. AH and LWG have received a speaker's fee from Astra Zeneca, Denmark, outside of the submitted work. MT has received speaker's fees from Astra Zeneca, Denmark, and Roche Diagnostics, Denmark, outside of the submitted work. MT and BA have participated in other studies with HPV test kits sponsored by Roche and HPV self sampling devices sponsored by Axlab. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The image illustrates one dual‐stain positive cell. Objective: X20
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Staining characteristics of discordant cases. Arrows point to single dual‐stain positive cells. A strong background staining makes it difficult to determine whether the slide should be scored positive or not. Objective: X20

References

    1. Ronco G, Giorgi‐Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249‐257.
    1. Elfstrom KM, Smelov V, Johansson ALV, et al. Long term duration of protective effect for HPV negative women: follow‐up of primary HPV screening randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g130.
    1. Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Bremer R, et al. Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus screening with p16/Ki‐67 dual stain triage in a large organized cervical cancer screening program. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(7):881‐888.
    1. Wentzensen N, Fetterman B, Castle PE, et al. p16/Ki‐67 dual stain cytology for detection of cervical precancer in HPV‐positive women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv257.
    1. Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE, et al. Performance of p16/Ki‐67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(15):4154‐4162.
    1. Wright TC, Behrens CM, Ranger‐Moore J, et al. Triaging HPV‐positive women with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology: results from a sub‐study nested into the ATHENA trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144(1):51‐56.
    1. Uijterwaal MH, Witte BI, Van Kemenade FJ, et al. Triaging borderline/mild dyskaryotic Pap cytology with p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology testing: cross‐sectional and longitudinal outcome study. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(6):1579‐1586.
    1. Peeters E, Wentzensen N, Bergeron C, Arbyn M. Meta‐analysis of the accuracy of p16 or p16/Ki‐67 immunocytochemistry versus HPV testing for the detection of CIN2+/CIN3+ in triage of women with minor abnormal cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127(3):169‐180.
    1. Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE, et al. Five‐year risk of cervical precancer following p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stain triage of HPV‐positive women. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(2):181‐186.
    1. Allia E, Ronco G, Coccia A, et al. Interpretation of p16(INK4a)/Ki‐67 dual immunostaining for the triage of human papillomavirus‐positive women by experts and nonexperts in cervical cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123(4):212‐218.
    1. Wentzensen N, Fetterman B, Tokugawa D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility and accuracy of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stain cytology in cervical cancer screening. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(12):914‐920.
    1. Kloboves Prevodnik V, Jerman T, Nolde N, et al. Interobserver variability and accuracy of p16/Ki‐67 dual immunocytochemical staining on conventional cervical smears. Diagn Pathol. 2019;14(1):48.
    1. Ebisch RMF, van der Horst J, Hermsen M, et al. Evaluation of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology as triage test for high‐risk human papillomavirus‐positive women. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(7):1021‐1031.
    1. Ovestad IT, Dalen I, Hansen E, et al. Clinical value of fully automated p16/Ki‐67 dual staining in the triage of HPV‐positive women in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(4):283‐291.
    1. Luttmer R, Dijkstra MG, Snijders PJF, et al. p16/Ki‐67 dual‐stained cytology for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in a HPV‐positive gynecologic outpatient population. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(8):870‐878.
    1. Waldstrom M, Christensen RK, Ornskov D. Evaluation of p16(INK4a)/Ki‐67 dual stain in comparison with an mRNA human papillomavirus test on liquid‐based cytology samples with low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(3):136‐145.
    1. Dovnik A, Repse FA. P16/Ki‐67 immunostaining in the triage of postmenopausal women with low‐grade cytology results. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24(3):235‐237.
    1. Nayar RWD. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes. 3rd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
    1. Totsch M. Education and training in cytology in Europe. Cytopathology. 2016;27(5):317‐320.
    1. The Danish Health and Medicines Authority . Screening for livmoderhalskræft (Screening for Cervical Cancer). . Assessed on April 15 2020.
    1. Roche . Roche Receives FDA Approval for CINtec PLUS Cytology Test to Aid Clinicians in Improving Cervical Cancer Prevention. . Accessed March 13, 2020
    1. Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. 1st ed London, UK: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1990.
    1. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276‐282.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377‐381.
    1. Benevolo M, Mancuso P, Allia E, et al. Interlaboratory concordance of p16/Ki‐67 dual‐staining interpretation in HPV‐positive women in a screening population. Cancer Cytopathol. 2020;128(5):323‐332.
    1. McMenamin M, McKenna M, McDowell A, Dawson C, McKenna R. Intra‐ and inter‐observer reproducibility of CINtec((R)) PLUS in ThinPrep((R)) cytology preparations. Cytopathology. 2017;28(4):284‐290.
    1. Prevodnik VK, Marinsek ZP, Zalar J, et al. Evaluation of the training program for p16/ Ki‐67 dual immunocytochemical staining interpretation for laboratory staff without experience in cervical cytology and immunocytochemistry. Radiol Oncol. 2020;54(2):201‐208.
    1. Nordic immunohistochemical Quality Control (NordiQC). . Assessed on April 15, 2020
    1. The UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS). . Assessed on April 15, 2020

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren