p16 is superior to Stathmin-1 and HSP27 in identifying cervical dysplasia

Sofia Liou, Neshat Nilforoushan, Yuna Kang, Neda A. Moatamed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: The aim of this study was to determine how Stathmin-1 and Heat Shock Protein 27 (HSP27) can be used as adjunctive biomarkers to differentiate high-grade dysplasia from benign/reactive lesions in cervical tissues. In addition, we aimed to see if any of these markers can differentiate endometrial from endocervical adenocarcinomas. Methods: Fifty cases including benign cervical tissue, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), adenocarcinoma in situ of the endocervix, invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma, and endometrial adenocarcinoma were selected. Stathmin-1 and HSP27 immunohistochemistry (IHC) were performed for each case and the results were compared to the previously available p16 IHC stains. Results: p16 stained positively in 100% of HSIL, endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ, and invasive endocervical cases. Stathmin-1 stained positively in 43% of HSIL and 90% of endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ and all invasive endocervical cases. Stathmin-1 and p16 were negative in all benign cervical samples. Stathmin-1, HSP27, and p16 stained 100% of LSIL cases. HSP27 stained indiscriminately, including 100% of benign cervical tissue. 87% of the endometrial adenocarcinomas stained positively for p16, Stathmin-1, and HSP27. Conclusion: p16 remains superior to both Stathmin-1 and HSP27 in differentiating dysplasia from benign, reactive changes of the cervix.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number85
JournalDiagnostic Pathology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2021


  • Adenocarcinoma
  • Cervix
  • Dysplasia
  • HSP27
  • P16
  • Stathmin-1

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology


Dive into the research topics of 'p16 is superior to Stathmin-1 and HSP27 in identifying cervical dysplasia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this