Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007 Oct;26(4):441-6.

CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples.

Author information

  • 1Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, The National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA.


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.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Support Center