GynecologyGynecologyГинекология2079-56962079-5831Consilium Medicum28581ArticlesСтатьиReview ArticleThe role of immunohistochemical research at the diagnosis of neoplastic lesions of the cervixРоль иммуногистохимического исследования при диагностике опухолевых поражений шейки маткиShchegolevA IЩеголевА И

д-р мед. наук, проф., зав. патологоанатомическим отд-нием ФГБУ НЦАГиП им. акад. В.И.Кулакова, проф. каф. патологической анатомии и клинической патологической анатомии лечебного фак-та ФГБОУ ВО РНИМУ им. Н.И.Пирогова

ashegolev@oparina4.ruMishnevO DМишневО Д

д-р мед. наук, проф., зав. каф. патологической анатомии и клинической патологической анатомии лечебного фак-та ФГБОУ ВО РНИМУ им. Н.И.Пирогова

Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian FederationФГБУ Научный центр акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии им. акад. В.И.Кулакова Минздрава РоссииN.I.Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian FederationФГБОУ ВО Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И.Пирогова Минздрава РоссииN.I.Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation15122016186VOL 18, NO6 (2016)ТОМ 18, №6 (2016)242709042020Copyright ©; 2016, Consilium MedicumCopyright ©; 2016, ООО "Консилиум Медикум"2016Consilium MedicumООО "Консилиум Медикум"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0https://gynecology.orscience.ru/2079-5831/article/view/28581

The analysis of literature data about the use of immunohistochemical markers for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of cervical lesions. The most significant assistance in identifying and determining the degree of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia has immunohistochemical detection of Ki-67 and p16. Shows the changes of p63, topoisomerase, C-erbB-2, cyclin D1 at the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of different degrees of severity and cervical cancer. It is concluded that the immunohistochemical research is legitimate considered as an effective method for histopathological studies. It allows to carry out an objective diagnosis of neoplastic lesions of the cervix, to carry out their differential diagnosis with reactive and tumor-like changes, as well as to determine the prognosis of the disease.

Проведен анализ данных литературы о возможностях применения иммуногистохимических маркеров для диагностики и дифференциальной диагностики поражений шейки матки. Наиболее существенную помощь в выявлении и определении степени цервикальной интраэпителиальной неоплазии оказывает иммуногистохимическое выявление Ki-67 и р16. Показаны изменения р63, топоизомеразы, C-erbB-2, циклина D1 при цервикальной интраэпителиальной неоплазии разной степени выраженности и раке шейки матки. Сделан вывод, что иммуногистохимическое исследование закономерно считается эффективным методом патогистологического исследования, позволяющим проводить объективную диагностику опухолевых поражений шейки матки, дифференциальную их диагностику с реактивными и опухолеподобными изменениями, а также определять прогноз заболевания.

cervixcervical intraepithelial neoplasiacancerimmunohistochemistryшейка маткицервикальная интраэпителиальная неоплазияракиммуногистохимияTorre L.A, Bray F, Siegel R.L et al. Global Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87-108.Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2015 году. Под ред. А.Д.Каприна, В.В.Старинского, Г.В.Петровой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А.Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИРЦ» Минздрава России, 2016.Прилепская В.Н., Коган Е.А., Трофимов Д.Ю. Возможности диагностики и лечения заболеваний шейки матки. Акушерство и гинекология. 2013; 9: 90-6.Байрамова Г.Р., Файзуллин Л.З., Королькова А.И. и др. Скрининг рака шейки матки: что нового в мировой практике. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 7: 17-21.Опухоли шейки матки. Морфологическая диагностика и генетика. Под ред. Ю.Ю.Андреевой, Г.А.Франка. М.: Практическая медицина, 2012.Руководство по иммуногистохимической диагностике опухолей человека. Под ред. С.В.Петрова, Н.Т.Райхлина. Казань, 2012.WHO classification of tumours of female reproductive organs. Ed. R.J.Kurman, M.L.Carcangiu, C.S.Herrington, R.H.Young. IARC: Lyon, 2014.Moscicki A.B, Ma Y, Wibbelsman C et al. Rate of and risks for regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 in adolescentsand young women. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 1373-80.Goldie S.J, Kohli M, Grima D et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost - effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 604-15.Resnick M, Lester S, Tate J.E et al. Viral and histopathological correlates on MN and MIB-1 expression in cervical intra - epithelial neoplasia. Hum Pathol 1996; 27: 234-9.Maeda M.Y, Simoes M, Wakamatsu A. Relevance of the rates of PCNA, Ki-67 and p53 expression according to the epithelial compartment in cervical lesions. Pathologica 2001; 93: 189-95.Alameda F, Fuste P, Boluda S et al. The Ki67 labeling Index is not a useful predictor for the follow up of cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia-1. J Low Gen Tract Dis 2004; 8: 313-6.Carreras R, Alameda F, Mancebo G et al. A study of Ki-67, c-erbB2 and cyclin D-1 expression in CIN-I, CIN-III and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Histol Histopathol 2007; 22: 587-92.Kruse A.J, Baak J.P, Janssen E.A et al. Low - and high - risk CIN 1 and 2 lesions: prospective predictive value of grade, HPV, and Ki-67 immuno - quantitative variables. J Pathol 2003; 199: 462-70.Kruse A.J, Baak J.P, Janssen E.A et al. Ki67 predicts progression in early CIN: validation of a multivariate progression - risk model. Cell Oncol 2004; 26: 13-20.Keating J.T, Ince T, Crum C.P. Surrogate biomarkers of HPV infection in cervical neoplasia screening and diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 2001; 8: 83-92.Bose S, Evans H, Lantzy L et al. p16(INK4A) is a surrogate biomarker for a subset of human papilloma virus - associated dysplasias of the uterine cervix as determined on the Pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 32: 21-4.Murphy N, Ring M, Heffron C.C et al. p16INK4A, CDC6, and MCM5: predictive biomarkers in cervical preinvasive neoplasiaand cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2005; 58: 525-34.Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from theuterine cervix: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35: 210-20.Dray M, Russell P, Dalrymple C et al. p16(INK4a) as a complementary marker of high - grade intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. I: experience with squamous lesions in 189 consecutive cervical biopsies. Pathology 2005; 37: 112-24.Dijkstra M.G, Heideman D.A, de Roy S.C et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining as an alternative to histology review for reliable grading of cervical intraepithelial lesions. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 972-7.Negri G, Vittadello F, Romano F et al. p16INK4a expression and progression risk of low - grade intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix uteri. Virchows Arch 2004; 445: 616-20.Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D et al. Overexpression of p16(INK4A) as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 276-84.Kalof A.N, Cooper K. Our approach to squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. J Clin Pathol 2007; 60: 449-55.Воротеляк Е.А., Чермных Э.С., Ткаченко С.Б. и др. Экспрессия и функция гена р63 в эпителиальных клетках. Известия РАН. 2007; 4: 389-93.Selvi K, Badhe B.A, Papa D et al. Role of p16, CK17, p63, and Human Papilloma virus in diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and distinction from its mimics. Internat J Surg Pathol 2014; 22: 221-30.Shi J, Liu H, Wilkerson M et al. Evaluation of p16, MCM2, DNA Topoisomerase IIA and ProExC in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Lab Investig 2007; 87 (Suppl. 1): 214A.Badr R.E, Walts A.E, Chung F et al. A sensitive and specific marker of HPV-associated squamous lesions of the cervix. Am J Surg Pathol 2008; 32: 899-906.Niibe Y, Nakano T, Ohno T et al. Prognostic significance of c-erbB-2/Her2 expression in advanced uterine cervical carcinoma with para - aortic lymph node metastasis treated with radiation therapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13: 849-55.Bae D.S, Cho S.B, Kim Y.J et al. Aberrant expression of cyclin D1 is associated with poor prognosis in early stage cervical cancer of the uterus. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 81: 341-7.Rose P.G, Cibas E.S, Rose P.G, Peters W.A. III. Cervical squamous neoplasia. In: C.P.Crum, M.R.Nucci, K.R.Lee, eds. Diagnostic Gynecologic and Obstetric Pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 2011; p. 245-327.Herfs M, Yamamoto Y, Laury A et al. A discrete population of squamocolumnar junction cells implicated in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 10516-21.Pinto A.P, Schlecht N.F, Woo T.Y et al. Biomarker (ProEx C, p16(INK4A), and MiB-1) distinction of high - grade squamous intraepithelial lesion from its mimics. Mod Pathol 2008; 21: 1067-74.Singer G, Kurman R.J, Mc Master M.T et al. HLA-G immunoreactivity is specific for intermediate trophoblast in gestational trophoblastic disease and can serve as a useful marker in differential diagnosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 914-20.Ou-Yang R.J, Hui P, Yang X.J, Zynger D.L. Expression of glypican 3 in placental site trophoblastic tumor. Diagn Pathol 2010; 5: 64.Kindelberger D.W, Krane J.E, Lee K.R. Glandular neoplasia of the cervix In: C.P.Crum, M.R.Nucci, K.R.Lee, eds. Diagnostic Gynecologic and Obstetric Pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 2011; p. 328-78.Witkiewicz A, Lee K.R, Brodsky G et al. Superficial (early) endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a study of 12 cases and comparison to conventional AIS. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1609-14.Ishikawa M, Fujii T, Masumoto N et al. Correlation of p16INK4A overexpression with human papillomavirus infection in cervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003; 22: 378-85.Kong C.S, Beck A.H, Longacre T.A. A panel of 3 markers including p16, ProExC, or HPV ISH is optimal for distinguishing between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 915-26.Mc Cluggage W.G. Ten problematic issues identified by pathology review for multidisciplinary gynaecological oncology meetings. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 293-301.