The risk stratification in gynecologic smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) is a crucial issue, but at present there are no validated prognostic markers. We aimed to assess p53, p16 and ki67 as immunohistochemical prognostic markers in STUMP through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 2020. All studies assessing p53, p16 and/or ki67 immunohistochemistry in gynecologic STUMP series were included. Immunohistochemical patterns were categorized as “abnormal” vs “wild-type” for p53, “diffuse” vs “focal/negative” for p16, ≥ 10% vs 10% for ki67. The prognostic value for recurrence was assessed through Cox regression analysis; a p-value 0.05 was considered significant. Markers that resulted significant were assessed for prognostic accuracy with calculation of area under the curve (AUC) and post-test probability of recurrence. Seven studies with 171 patients were included. Significant association with disease-free survival was found for p53 (p 0.0001) and p16 (p 0.0001), but not for ki67 (p = 0.911). p53 showed sensitivity= 83%, specificity= 86%, AUC= 0.89, and post-test recurrence probabilities of 54% and 7% in the case of abnormal and wild-type expression, respectively. p16 showed sensitivity= 84%, specificity= 88%, AUC= 0.91 and post-test recurrence probabilities of 56% and 7% in the case of diffuse and focal/negative expression, respectively. In conclusion, p53 and p16 might be useful in the risk assessment of STUMP, despite not being suitable as stand-alone prognostic markers.

p53, p16 and ki67 as immunohistochemical prognostic markers in uterine smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP)

Travaglino A.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

The risk stratification in gynecologic smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) is a crucial issue, but at present there are no validated prognostic markers. We aimed to assess p53, p16 and ki67 as immunohistochemical prognostic markers in STUMP through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases were searched from their inception to July 2020. All studies assessing p53, p16 and/or ki67 immunohistochemistry in gynecologic STUMP series were included. Immunohistochemical patterns were categorized as “abnormal” vs “wild-type” for p53, “diffuse” vs “focal/negative” for p16, ≥ 10% vs 10% for ki67. The prognostic value for recurrence was assessed through Cox regression analysis; a p-value 0.05 was considered significant. Markers that resulted significant were assessed for prognostic accuracy with calculation of area under the curve (AUC) and post-test probability of recurrence. Seven studies with 171 patients were included. Significant association with disease-free survival was found for p53 (p 0.0001) and p16 (p 0.0001), but not for ki67 (p = 0.911). p53 showed sensitivity= 83%, specificity= 86%, AUC= 0.89, and post-test recurrence probabilities of 54% and 7% in the case of abnormal and wild-type expression, respectively. p16 showed sensitivity= 84%, specificity= 88%, AUC= 0.91 and post-test recurrence probabilities of 56% and 7% in the case of diffuse and focal/negative expression, respectively. In conclusion, p53 and p16 might be useful in the risk assessment of STUMP, despite not being suitable as stand-alone prognostic markers.
2021
2021
Diagnosis; Leiomyoma; Myoma; Myomata; Prognosis; Sarcoma
Travaglino, A.; Raffone, A.; Gencarelli, A.; Neola, D.; Oliviero, D. A.; Alfano, R.; Campanino, M. R.; Cariati, F.; Zullo, F.; Mollo, A.; Insabato, L.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2021 p53, p16 and ki67 as immunohistochemical prognostic markers in uterine smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) .pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.51 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.51 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2162352
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact