XXXX staining has limited value in predicting the outcome of histological low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix.

@entity1 @entity8046 @entity986 @entity75 @entity13763 @entity1082 @entity2784
In order to evaluate the usefulness of @entity986 staining in predicting the outcome of histological low-grade squamous @entity75 /cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 ( @entity2784 /CIN1) we prospectively recruited all the @entity1 referred to colposcopy from 2003 to 2011 due to abnormal screening test results and diagnosed with @entity2784 /CIN1 at biopsy (n=507). All biopsies were stained for @entity986 and re-evaluated after three years by the same gynecological pathologist using the LAST criteria. Follow-up was conducted every 6 months and included a Pap test (liquid-based cytology), high-risk @entity1082 testing (Hybrid Capture 2 test), and colposcopy. The mean follow-up was 28 months. An outcome diagnosis of @entity2784 was defined as a histological diagnosis of high-grade @entity13763 / @entity8046 ( @entity2784 /CIN2-3). The diagnosis of @entity2784 /CIN1 was confirmed in 416 out of 507 biopsies (82%), whereas 58 (11%) were reclassified as negative and 33 (6%) as @entity2784 /CIN2-3. During follow-up, 86/507 @entity1 initially diagnosed with @entity2784 /CIN1 (17%) showed an outcome diagnosis of @entity2784 /CIN2-3, with the rate of @entity2784 final diagnosis of 3% (2/58) in the @entity1 with biopsies reclassified as negative, 17% (70/416) in the group with confirmed @entity2784 and 42% (14/33) in the @entity1 with biopsies reclassified as @entity2784 (P<0.001). @entity986 was positive in 245/507 @entity1 (48%) and in 210/416 @entity1 (50%) with confirmed @entity2784 /CIN1 at re-evaluation. Although positive @entity986 immunostaining was associated with risk of @entity2784 /CIN2-3 outcome in the multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.1; P=0.009) in the overall group of @entity1 with @entity2784 /CIN1, this association was not verified in the subset of @entity1 with confirmed @entity2784 /CIN1 after re-evaluation (HR: 1.6; 95% CI: 0.9-2.6; P=0.095). In conclusion, in @entity2784 /CIN1 lesions @entity986 should be limited to equivocal cases in which @entity2784 /CIN2 is included in the differential diagnosis since it has low value in clinical practice as a marker of progression of @entity2784 /CIN1.
