Interpreting Microbiopsies in Cervical Smears

Mravunac, M.; Smedts, Frank; Philippi, Alan F.; Remerij, D; Krul, A; Schrik, Maria; Hof, B van't; Heusden, C van; Vooijs, G. P.

doi:10.1159/000328557

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MIB-1 staining in such smears, if done initially before estrogen therapy, is expected to show significantly low proliferative indices in atrophic smears as compared with higher indices in HSIL lesions. Aforementioned studies, 9,16,20 although performed in different settings than ours, have drawn more or less similar inference regarding the use of MIB-1 in conjunction with routine Pap staining and lend support to our observation that MIB-1 immunostaining can be a diagnostic adjunct to cervical Pap smears.…”

Section: Mib-1 and Pcna Immunostainingsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Statistical analysis of our results showed a significant difference of LIs between LSIL and HSIL groups (Table III), indicating that these markers may be helpful in diagnosing and differentiating SIL lesions. Mravunac et al, 9 in their study on MIB-1 immunostaining in microbiopsy specimens from inconclusive or unsatisfactory cervical smears, observed that high MIB-1 LI was indicative of high-grade lesion, but low MIB-1 index did not rule out high-grade lesion. Their microbiopsy specimens were thick tissue fragments removed from cytological smears and processed for histological sections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of reports [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] have been published with MIB-1 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) proliferative markers in discriminating normal cervical epithelium and CIN lesions in tissue sections but only sporadic reports in Pap smears. [13][14][15][16] MIB-1 is an important immunocytochemical marker to assess the proliferation and has been suggested as a sensitive biological indicator of progression in CIN lesions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

MIB-1 and PCNA immunostaining as a diagnostic adjunct to cervical Pap smear

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was done to determine the role of MIB-1 (Molecular Immunology Borstel) and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) proliferative index as a diagnostic adjunct to cervical Papanicolaou (Pap) smear for the identification of ascending grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) developing into cancer in the human uterine cervix. A total of 49 adequate Pap smears with consensus diagnosis were destained for immunocytochemical staining (MIB-1 and PC10). Staining was done by streptavidin-biotin method after antigen retrieval. MIB-1 and PC10 labeling index (LI) were calculated in each case and divided into three groups, i.e., <10%, 10-20%, and >20%, respectively. Statistical analysis was done by using the SPSS 10.0 package. The comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test. Bivariate and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to obtain correlations between different groups. Out of 49 cases, 40 cases (81.6%) showed positive immunostaining with MIB-1 and PCNA. Proliferative LI of MIB-1 and PCNA increased with the ascending grades of CIN lesions to carcinoma. The highest proliferative index (mean +/- SD) for PCNA and MIB-1 were observed for the carcinoma group (PCNA LI, 39.200 +/- 1.6865; MIB-1LI, 35.300 +/- 1.8886). A significant positive correlation between ascending grades of squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) and labeling indices of markers (r = 0.87 for MIB-1 and r = 0.88 for PCNA) suggests that MIB-1/PCNA proliferative markers can be used as an adjunct to cytomorphological interpretation of conventional cervical Pap smear.

show abstract

Section: Mib-1 and Pcna Immunostainingsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

MIB-1 and PCNA immunostaining as a diagnostic adjunct to cervical Pap smear

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of microbiopsies/HCGs was the commonest reason (30.5%) for a false‐negative result in the present study. These are thick, hyperchromatic tissue fragments in which the differential diagnosis lies between high‐grade (moderate or severe) dyskaryosis and benign cells such as endometrial cells, cells in atrophy or repair and metaplastic cells 9,10 . Microbiopsies/HCGs are difficult to evaluate especially in the absence of other, easier to assess abnormal cells 11 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%