HPV-triage with HC2 can be recommended to triage women with ASCUS because it has higher accuracy (significantly higher sensitivity, and similar specificity) than repeat cytology.


When triaging women with LSIL, an HC2 test yields a significantly higher sensitivity, but a significantly lower specificity, compared to a repeat cytology. Therefore, practice recommendations for management of women with LSIL should be balanced, taking local circumstances into account.
Is p16(INK4A) expression more useful than human papillomavirus test to determine the outcome of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance-categorized Pap smear? A comparative analysis using abnormal cervical smears with follow-up biopsies.
To correlate high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) viral load to p16(INK4A) expression in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)-categorized Pap smears with follow-up biopsies in order to elucidate their relationships in gynecological pathology.
                We studied 66 ASCUS-categorized Pap smears with subsequent follow-up biopsies. HR-HPV viral load was determined by Hybrid Capture II assay from the cervical swab in each ASCUS-diagnosed Pap smear. Both smears and biopsies were immunostained with a primary anti-p16 antibody, clone E6H4, and we analyzed the correlations between HR-HPV viral load in each ASCUS-diagnosed Pap smear and p16 expression of smears with follow-up biopsies.
                Correlation analyses of the corresponding histological diagnoses from 66 ASCUS-diagnosed Pap smears revealed that 21 (32%) cases had only reactive changes and 45 cases showed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia including LSIL (24 cases, 36%) and HSIL or higher (21 cases, 32%). Tests for HR-HPV viral load revealed 17 (26%) negative cases and 49 (74%) positive cases. Immunostaining showed that 26 cases (39%) were negative and 40 (61%) were positive for p16 expression. Comparative analysis of these two tests indicated consistencies as well as discrepancies. They showed significant differences (P < 0.001) between negative p16 expressions of Pap smears with the presence of reactive lesions in follow-up biopsies and HR-HPV viral load. However, no significant difference (P = 0.739 and 0.606) between p16 expression of Pap smears with the presence of LSIL, HSIL or higher in follow-up biopsies and high HR-HPV viral load was found. In addition, there were significant differences (P < 0.001) in specificity and positive predictive value, but no significant differences were found in sensitivity (P = 0.606) and negative predictive value (P = 0.062) between p16 immunostaining and HR-HPV viral load.
                The results indicate that there is a close association between weak or strong p16 expressions in ASCUS-categorized smears with the presence of SILs in follow-up biopsies and positive HR-HPV viral loads. Conversely, there is also a clear association between the lack of p16 expression and the absence of significant lesions in follow-up biopsies, but this is not consistent with a negative HR-HPV viral load. It is concluded that p16 expression is an indicator of pathogenic activity of HR-HPV, which is an objective biomarker for clarification of ASCUS-categorized Pap smears in gynecological cytopathology. Furthermore, through comparative analysis, directly visualized p16 immunostaining on smears appears to be a more effective method than HR-HPV viral load for the detection of reactive changes and LSILs from ASCUS-categorized Pap smears.