Association between the patient information with the tissue morphology and the FIGO stage.

<p>Association between the patient information with the tissue morphology and the FIGO stage.</p

Crude table showing the % of stained cells in the cervical epithelium.

*<p>Dunn's test for multiple comparisons: revealed significant differences among normal controls compared with low CIN, High grade CIN and invasive tumor; and between low CIN compared to invasive tumor.</p><p>Moreover significant differences were found among Invasive tumor and control, High grade CIN and control. Low grade CIN and control, invasive tumor and low grade CIN and between invasive tumor and high grade CIN.</p

Ki-67 expression.

<p>A, B and C: control epithelium; D, E and F: invasive cervical cancer epithelium. (A) Negative; (B) Strict positive stain in the basal layer; (C) positive stain in the basal and intermediate layer; (D) less than 25% of positive cells all over the epithelium; (E) 25–50% of positive cells all over the epithelium; (F) more than 50% of positive cells all over the epithelium (DAB, brown stain; Mag. 40×).</p

A simplified schematic representation of the different expression patterns in the three layers of the cervical epithelium.

<p>In all lesions, MCM-2 staining was present in the parabasal and intermediate layer of the epithelium. Less expression was found on the control specimens. Positive expression on the superficial layer was present in High grade CIN.</p

Association between p16 expression patterns with the tissue morphology and the FIGO stage.

*<p>Test for trend across ordered groups (np_trend) was used to analyze more than two subgroups for the others were used Fisher's exact.</p

MCM-2 expression in HIV positive and negative cervices.

<p>MCM-2 expression in HIV positive and negative cervices.</p

P16^ink4a expression.

<p>A: control epithelium; B, C, D, E and F: invasive cervical cancer epithelium. (A) Negative; (B) Focal moderate nuclear and cytoplasmatic expression; (C) Diffuse weak nuclear and cytoplasmatic expression; (D) Diffuse moderate cytoplasmatic expression; (E) Diffuse strong nuclear and cytoplasmatic expression; (F) Negative (DAB, brown stain; Mag. 40×).</p

Clinical performance of p16^INK4a, Ki-67 and p53 immunostaining in relationship to FIGO stage III or more severe (FIGO III+) and FIGO II+.

<p>Se = sensitivity, Sp = specificity, YI = Youden's Index (Sp+Se−100%).</p>*<p>Highlighted with bold font are the cut point combinations of p16^INK4a and Ki-67 that are most accurate (highest Youden's Index) for consensus diagnosis of FIGO II+.</p

Semiquantitative analysis of MCM 2 labeling indices (LI) and range of immunopositivity.

*<p>2/20 HG-CIN specimens had no (0) immunopositivity cells.</p

Co-expression analysis of MCM2 and HPV DNA in a CIN 1 lesion.

<p>Panel A shows the regular light microscopy view after in situ hybridization for HPV 16 DNA (blue signal) followed by immunohistochemistry for MCM 2 (red signal). The image was then analyzed by the Nuance system whereby the HPV 16 signal is fluorescent blue (panel B) and the MCM2 signal is fluorescent red (panel C). When the two latter images are overlaid (panel D) it is evident that the cells expressing MCM2 do not have detectable HPV 16 DNA and vice-versa.</p