Benevolo M, Terrenato I, Mottolese M, Marandino F, Muti P, Carosi M, Rollo F, Ronchetti L, Mariani L, Vocaturo G & Vocaturo A (2010)
Histopathology 57, 580–586 Comparative evaluation of nm23 and p16 expression as biomarkers of high‐risk human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ lesions of the uterine cervix Aims:To investigate the clinical role of nm23 expression in identifying both high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) and high‐grade cervical lesions or carcinomas [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+)], and to compare it with p16 overexpression, as this latter biomarker has already been reported widely in HR‐HPV infected cervical lesions. Methods and results:Immunohistochemical evaluation of nm23 and p16 in 143 cervical biopsy specimens including negative, low‐ and high‐grade lesions and squamous carcinomas (SC). HR‐HPV testing by Digene hybrid capture 2 (HC2) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on the cervico‐vaginal samples of the same patients. In detecting CIN2+, p16 was significantly more sensitive and specific than nm23 (96.3% versus 81.8% and 66% versus 36.4%, respectively, both P< P<0.0001), although the sensitivities were comparable (71% versus 76%). We found a significantly direct correlation between nm23 and HC2 findings. However, nm23 expression did not correlate with HPV16/18 infection. In contrast, we observed a significant association between p16 overexpression and HPV16/18 genotypes. Conclusions:We confirm the diagnostic value of p16 overexpression. Moreover, despite in vitrodata regarding the interaction with the HPV‐E7 protein, nm23 does not appear to be a more useful biomarker than p16 in identifying CIN2+ or HR‐HPV infection.