p16、survivin及cyclinD1表达在CINⅡ分流中的作用

发布时间：2018-03-05 19:20

本文选题：免疫组化　切入点：高级别鳞状上皮内瘤变（HSIL）　出处：《上海交通大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的：通过研究相关生物学标记物在宫颈上皮内瘤变各级别的表达情况及变化趋势，观察其能否作为CIN分流的参考指标，从而为临床处理提供依据方法：选择2012-2013年于上海市第一人民医院妇科行阴道镜宫颈活检术或宫颈锥切术患者的宫颈组织石蜡病理切片90例，其中CIN CIN CIN各30例，通过免疫组化SP法研究p16cyclinD1和survivin在各例病变中的表达情况结果：（1）30例CIN中p16染色阴性6.6%（2/30）弱阳性30%（9/30）中阳性63.3（%19/30），，无强阳性表达；30例CIN中p16染色阴性3.3%（1/30）弱阳性3.3%（1/30）中阳性56.7%（17/30）强阳性36.6%（11/30）；30例CIN中p16染色阴性16.7%（5/30）弱阳性3.3%（1/30）中阳性30.0%（9/30）强阳性50.0%（15/30）三组相比，CIN组织中p16强阳性表达率随病变级别增加而增加，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.01）（2）30例CIN中survivin染色阴性53.3%（16/30）弱阳性46.7%（14/30）无中阳性及强阳性染色；30例CIN中survivin染色阴性6.0%（18/30）弱阳性40.0%（12/30）无中阳性及强阳性染色；30例CIN3survivin染色阴性53.3%（16/30）弱阳性46.7%（14/30）无中阳性及强阳性染色（3） Cyclin D1染色中仅CIN和CIN各有3.3%（1/30）染色呈弱阳性，其余全部CIN级染色均为阴性结论：（1） p16染色强阳性率在CIN组织中随病变级别增加而升高，其差别有统计学意义，可能可以将p16免疫组化染色强阳性（3+）作为CIN分流为HSIL（CIN2+和CIN3)或LSIL(CIN1及CIN2-)的分界点（2） Survivin和cyclinD1染色阳性率在CIN各级别中无明显差异，二者在分流CIN方面的作用均不如p16
[Abstract]:Objective: to study the expression and trend of biological markers in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and to observe whether they can be used as a reference index for CIN shunt, so as to provide the basis for clinical treatment. Methods: a total of 90 cases of cervical tissue paraffin sections from 2012 to 2013 were selected from gynecological department of Shanghai first people's Hospital, including 30 cases of CIN CIN CIN, 30 cases of cervical biopsy and cervix conization. Expression of p16cyclin D1 and survivin in various lesions by immunohistochemical SP method. Results:. In 30 cases of CIN with p16 staining negative (6.66 / 2 / 30) weak positive 30 / 30) positive 63.3 (P / 30, no strong positive, 30 cases of CIN with negative p16 negative 3.33 / 30), strong positive 56.717 / 30) strong positive 36.617 / 30) in 30 cases of CIN with negative p16 staining 16.770 / 530) with weak positive 3.3P / 30) in the three groups (30.0930) strong positive 50.0930% (50.0930%). The positive expression rate of p16 was increased with the increase of pathological grade. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). 30 cases of CIN with survivin staining negative 53.33% 16 / 30) weak positive 46.7% 14 / 30) No medium positive and strong positive 30 cases survivin staining negative 6.00% 30) weak positive 40.040.010% 12 / 30) No medium positive and strong positive staining 30 cases CIN3survivin staining negative 53.33% 1630) No positive and strong positive 46.7T 1430) No positive or strong positive staining in 30 cases of CIN with weak positive staining and strong positive staining in 30 cases with CIN3survivin staining negative in 30 cases with CIN3survivin staining negative in 30 cases with CIN3survivin staining negative in 30 cases of CIN3survivin staining in 30 cases with negative staining of 53.33% 16 / 30) weak positive staining and strong positive staining on 1430%) No positive staining or strong positive staining. (3) in Cyclin D1 staining, only 3. 3% of CIN and 3. 3% of CIN were weakly positive, while all other CIN grade staining was negative. Conclusion:. 1) the positive rate of p16 staining increased with the increase of pathological grade in CIN tissue, and the difference was statistically significant. It may be suggested that p16 immunohistochemical staining could be used as the dividing point of CIN shunt to HSIL(CIN2 and CIN3) or LSIL(CIN1 and CIN2). (2) the positive rates of Survivin and cyclinD1 staining were not significantly different in all grades of CIN, and their role in shunt CIN was not as good as that of p16.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R737.33

【共引文献】