Expression of the p16 and Ki67 in Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions and Cancer

  • Kanthiya, Kanjana (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University) ;
  • Khunnarong, Jakkapan (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University) ;
  • Tangjitgamol, Siriwan (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University) ;
  • Puripat, Napaporn (Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University) ;
  • Tanvanich, Sujitra (Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University)
  • Published : 2016.07.01


Purpose: To evaluate the expression of p16 and Ki67 in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer. Materials and Methods: We performed a immunohistochemical study of p16 and Ki67 in 243 cervical tissues - 53 non-dysplastic lesions, 106 CIN1, 61 CIN2/3 and 23 squamous cell carcinomas. The expression of p16 and Ki67 was interpreted independently by 2 researchers and the sensitivity and specificity to detect clinically significant lesions (${\geq}CIN2$) were determined. Results: The overall agreement results of positive or negative immunostaining of intra-inter observer variability were 0.659 for p16 and 0.808 for Ki67. p16 expression was demonstrated in 91.3% of invasive carcinomas, 78.7% of CIN2/3, 10.4% of CIN1 and 9.4% of non-dysplasic lesions. The corresponding Ki67 expression was: 100% of all invasive carcinomas, 75.4% of CIN2/3, 22.6% of CIN1, and 11.3% with non-dysplasia. The expression was significantly different between CIN2/3 vs CIN1 for both p16 and Ki67 (p-values <0.001 both), and cancer vs CIN2/3 for Ki67 (p-value 0.008). The differences were not significant between CIN1 vs non-dysplasia (p-values 1.000 for p16 and 0.130 of Ki67), and cancer vs CIN2/3 for p16 (p value 0.219). The sensitivity and specificity to detect > CIN2 were 84.5% and 90.5% by p16 and 82.1% and 88.6% by Ki67. Conclusions: The rates for 16 and Ki67 expression were directly associated with the severity of cervical lesions. Significant differences in these markers expression may be useful in cases with equivocal histologic features among cervical intraepithelial lesions, but not between CIN1 and non-dysplastic lesions. The two markers had high sensitivity and specificity in determining >CIN2.


  1. Kim SM, Lee JU, Lee DW, Kim MJ, Lee HN (2011). The prognostic significance of P16, Ki-67, P63, and CK17 expression determined by immunohistochemical staining in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1. Korean J Obstet Gynecol, 54, 184-91.
  2. Kostopoulou E, Samara M, Kollia P, et al (2011). Different patterns of p16 immunoreactivity in cervical biopsies : correlation to lesion grade and HPV detection, with review of literature. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 32, 54-61.
  3. Lambert AF, Anshau F, Schmitt (2006). P16 expression in cervical premalignant and malignant lesions. Exp Mol Pathol, 80, 192-6.
  4. Ministry of public health (2015). Cancer incidence in Thailand: Cervix uteri. In: Imsamran W, Chaiwerawattana A, Wiangnon S, Pongnikorn D, Suwanrungrung K, Sangrajrang S, Buasom R, eds. Cancer in Thailand, Volume VIII, 2010-2012. Bangkok; 48.
  5. Murphy N, Ring M, Hefron CC, et al (2005). P16INK4A, CDC6, and MCM5: predictive biomarkers in cervical preinvasive neoplasia and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol, 58, 525-34.
  6. Moore MA, Attasara P, khuhaprema T, et al (2010). Cancer epidemiology in mainland South-East Asia-past, present and future. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 67-80.
  7. Nam EJ, Kim JW, Hong JW, et al (2008). Expression of the p16INK4a and Ki-67 in relation to the grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and high-risk human papilloma virus infection. J Gynecol Oncol, 19, 162-8.
  8. Ostor AG (1993). Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int Gynecol Pathol, 12, 186-92.
  9. Queriroz C, Silva TC, Venancio AF (2006). P16 expression as a potential prognostic marker in cervical pre-neoplastic and neoplatic lesion. Pathol Res Pract, 202 ,77-83.
  10. Srisomboon J (2004). Cervical cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. Bangkok, P.B. Book center .
  11. Tan GC, Sharifan NA, Shiran MS (2008). Utility of Ki 67 and p53 in distinguishing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 from squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 9, 781-84.
  12. Volgareva G, Zavalishina L, Andreeva Y, et al (2004). Protein p16 as a marker of dysplastic and neoplastic alterations in cervical epithelial cells. BMC Cancer, 4, 58.
  13. Van Niekerk D, Guillaud M, Matisic J, et al (2007). P16 and MIB1 improve the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: methodological issues in a report of 447 biopsies with consensus diagnosis and HPV HCII testing. Gynecol Oncol, 107, 233-40
  14. Wang SS, Trunk M, Schiffman M, et al (2004). Validation of p16INK4a as a marker of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in cervical biopsies from a population-based cohort in Costa Rica. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 13, 1355-60.
  15. Walts AE, Bose S (2009). P16, Ki-67, and BD ProExTMC immunostaining: a practical approach for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol, 40, 957-64.
  16. Agoff SN, Lin P, Morihara J, et al (2003). P16INK4a expression correlates with degree of cervical neoplasia: a comparison with Ki-67 expression and detection of high-risk HPV types. Mod Pathol, 16, 665-73.
  17. Aslani FS, Safaei A, Pourjabali M, Momtahan M (2013). Evaluation of Ki67, P16 and CK17 markers in differentiating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and benign lesions. Iran J Med Sci, 31, 15-21.
  18. Benevolo M, Mottolese M, Marandino F, Vorcaturo G (2006). Immunohistochemical expression of p16 is predictive of HR-HPV infection in cervical low-grade lesions. Mod Pathol, 19, 384-91.
  19. Brown CA, Bogers J, Sahebali S, et al (2012). Role of Protein biomarkers in the detection of high-grade disease in cervical cancer screening programs. J Oncol, 1-11.
  20. Cones-Zamora P, Domenech-Peris A, Orantes-Casado FJ, et al (2009). Effect of human papillomavirus on cell cycle-related protein P16, Ki-67, Cyclin D1, P53 and ProEx C in precursor lesion of cervical cancinoma. Am J Clin Pathol, 132, 378-90.
  21. Cavalcante DM, Linhares LM, Pompeu ML, Giraldo PC, Eleuterio J (2012). The utility of p 16INK4a and Ki-67 to identify hig-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in adolescents and young women. Indian J Med Microbiol, 55, 339-42.
  22. Dijkstra MG, Heideman DA, de Roy SC, et al (2010). P16(INK4a) immunostaining as an alternative to histology review for reliable grading of cervical intraepithelial lesions. J Clin Pathol, 63, 927-72.
  23. Evanthia A, Kostopoulou and George Koukoulis (2012). Immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases. A Clinical Perspective, Dr. Davy Vanden Broeck (Ed.): InTech, 41-64.
  24. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, et al (2012) GLOBOCAN, v1.0. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. IARC cancer base NO.11.
  25. Hariri J, Oster A (2007). The negative predictive value of p16 to assess the outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 in the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 26, 223-8.
  26. Ishikawa M, Fujii T, Saito M, et al (2006). Overexpression of p16INK4a as an indicator for human papillomavirus oncogenic activity in cervical squamous neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 16, 347-53.
  27. Jackson JA, Kapur U, Ersahin C (2012). Utility of p16, Ki-67, and HPV test in diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and atrophy in women older than 50 years with 3- to 7- year follow-up. Int J Surg Pathol, 20, 146-53.
  28. Keating JT, Cviko A, Riethdorf S, et at (2001). Ki-67, Cyclin E, and p16INK4 are complimentary surrogate biomarkers for human papilloma virus-related cervical neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol, 25, 884-91.