CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3

results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples

Joseph D. Carreon, Mark E. Sherman, Diego Guillén, Diane Solomon, Rolando Herrero, Jose Jerónimo, Sholom Wacholder, Ana Cecilia Rodríguez, Jorge Morales, Martha Hutchinson, Robert D. Burk, Mark Schiffman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

144 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We wished to compare the relative reproducibility and validity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and CIN3 diagnoses. In a population-based cohort study (1993-2001) of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical neoplasia in Costa Rica, we compared community pathologists' diagnoses with those of the 2 independent reviewers from the United States (total, n = 357). As measures of validity, we correlated primary and review diagnoses with HPV positivity and cytological interpretations. Two review pathologists agreed with 84% and 81%, respectively, of initial diagnoses of CIN3 compared with 13% and 31% of CIN2. The CIN3 diagnoses made by review pathologists were 94% oncogenic HPV positive, compared with 72% of CIN2 diagnoses. Eighty-one percent of CIN3 diagnoses versus 61% of CIN2 were correlated with high-grade cytological interpretations. The CIN3 is a substantially more reproducible diagnosis that can be validated more frequently with HPV tests and cytological interpretations than CIN2.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)441-446
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology
Volume26
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2007

Fingerprint

Population
Costa Rica
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
Cohort Studies
Pathologists
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Cervix
  • CIN2
  • CIN3
  • Pathology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3 : results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. / Carreon, Joseph D.; Sherman, Mark E.; Guillén, Diego; Solomon, Diane; Herrero, Rolando; Jerónimo, Jose; Wacholder, Sholom; Rodríguez, Ana Cecilia; Morales, Jorge; Hutchinson, Martha; Burk, Robert D.; Schiffman, Mark.

In: International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 10.2007, p. 441-446.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carreon, JD, Sherman, ME, Guillén, D, Solomon, D, Herrero, R, Jerónimo, J, Wacholder, S, Rodríguez, AC, Morales, J, Hutchinson, M, Burk, RD & Schiffman, M 2007, 'CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples', International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 441-446. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab
Carreon, Joseph D. ; Sherman, Mark E. ; Guillén, Diego ; Solomon, Diane ; Herrero, Rolando ; Jerónimo, Jose ; Wacholder, Sholom ; Rodríguez, Ana Cecilia ; Morales, Jorge ; Hutchinson, Martha ; Burk, Robert D. ; Schiffman, Mark. / CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3 : results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. In: International Journal of Gynecological Pathology. 2007 ; Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 441-446.
@article{a54a50dc54914867bd22efe3064630bc,
title = "CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples",
abstract = "We wished to compare the relative reproducibility and validity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and CIN3 diagnoses. In a population-based cohort study (1993-2001) of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical neoplasia in Costa Rica, we compared community pathologists' diagnoses with those of the 2 independent reviewers from the United States (total, n = 357). As measures of validity, we correlated primary and review diagnoses with HPV positivity and cytological interpretations. Two review pathologists agreed with 84{\%} and 81{\%}, respectively, of initial diagnoses of CIN3 compared with 13{\%} and 31{\%} of CIN2. The CIN3 diagnoses made by review pathologists were 94{\%} oncogenic HPV positive, compared with 72{\%} of CIN2 diagnoses. Eighty-one percent of CIN3 diagnoses versus 61{\%} of CIN2 were correlated with high-grade cytological interpretations. The CIN3 is a substantially more reproducible diagnosis that can be validated more frequently with HPV tests and cytological interpretations than CIN2.",
keywords = "Cervix, CIN2, CIN3, Pathology",
author = "Carreon, {Joseph D.} and Sherman, {Mark E.} and Diego Guill{\'e}n and Diane Solomon and Rolando Herrero and Jose Jer{\'o}nimo and Sholom Wacholder and Rodr{\'i}guez, {Ana Cecilia} and Jorge Morales and Martha Hutchinson and Burk, {Robert D.} and Mark Schiffman",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "441--446",
journal = "International Journal of Gynecological Pathology",
issn = "0277-1691",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3

T2 - results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples

AU - Carreon, Joseph D.

AU - Sherman, Mark E.

AU - Guillén, Diego

AU - Solomon, Diane

AU - Herrero, Rolando

AU - Jerónimo, Jose

AU - Wacholder, Sholom

AU - Rodríguez, Ana Cecilia

AU - Morales, Jorge

AU - Hutchinson, Martha

AU - Burk, Robert D.

AU - Schiffman, Mark

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - We wished to compare the relative reproducibility and validity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and CIN3 diagnoses. In a population-based cohort study (1993-2001) of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical neoplasia in Costa Rica, we compared community pathologists' diagnoses with those of the 2 independent reviewers from the United States (total, n = 357). As measures of validity, we correlated primary and review diagnoses with HPV positivity and cytological interpretations. Two review pathologists agreed with 84% and 81%, respectively, of initial diagnoses of CIN3 compared with 13% and 31% of CIN2. The CIN3 diagnoses made by review pathologists were 94% oncogenic HPV positive, compared with 72% of CIN2 diagnoses. Eighty-one percent of CIN3 diagnoses versus 61% of CIN2 were correlated with high-grade cytological interpretations. The CIN3 is a substantially more reproducible diagnosis that can be validated more frequently with HPV tests and cytological interpretations than CIN2.

AB - We wished to compare the relative reproducibility and validity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and CIN3 diagnoses. In a population-based cohort study (1993-2001) of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical neoplasia in Costa Rica, we compared community pathologists' diagnoses with those of the 2 independent reviewers from the United States (total, n = 357). As measures of validity, we correlated primary and review diagnoses with HPV positivity and cytological interpretations. Two review pathologists agreed with 84% and 81%, respectively, of initial diagnoses of CIN3 compared with 13% and 31% of CIN2. The CIN3 diagnoses made by review pathologists were 94% oncogenic HPV positive, compared with 72% of CIN2 diagnoses. Eighty-one percent of CIN3 diagnoses versus 61% of CIN2 were correlated with high-grade cytological interpretations. The CIN3 is a substantially more reproducible diagnosis that can be validated more frequently with HPV tests and cytological interpretations than CIN2.

KW - Cervix

KW - CIN2

KW - CIN3

KW - Pathology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34748883732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34748883732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab

DO - 10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 441

EP - 446

JO - International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

JF - International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

SN - 0277-1691

IS - 4

ER -