4.3 Article

p16/Ki-67 Dual Staining Is a Reliable Biomarker for Risk Stratification for Patients With Borderline/Mild Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening

期刊

ANTICANCER RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 2599-2606

出版社

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15738

关键词

HPV; cervical cancer; p16; Ki-67 dual-stained cytology; triage; CIN2; CIN3; HSIL; screening; risk stratification; Pap test

类别

资金

  1. European Union (European Social Fund) through the Operational Program 'Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning [MIS-5000432]
  2. [16742]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

p16/Ki-67 dual staining is a highly efficient method for risk stratification of women with mild cervical abnormalities, which can reduce the number of colposcopies required.
Background/Aim: To evaluate p16/Ki-67 dual staining performance for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in the management of women with minor cervical abnormalities. Patients and Methods: All 759 enrolled patients were tested for cytology, high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) and dual p16/Ki67 staining. Results: Positivity rates for HR-HPV and dual staining increased as dysplasia was worsened from non-CIN (37.6% and 0%) to CIN1 (62.5% and 1.6%) and CIN2+ (98.7% and 97.3%), respectively. HPV18 and HPV16 exhibited the highest odds ratios (53.16 and 11.31) in the CIN2+ group. Both p16/Ki-67 dual staining and HR-HPV presented similar sensitivities (97.3% and 98.7%, respectively) for CIN2+ detection. Dual staining specificity, however, was 99.3%, significantly higher compared to HRHPV testing (52.2%). The utility of dual staining was evaluated in different screening strategies and appeared to reduce the number of colposcopies required for the detection of CIN2+ cases. Conclusion: p16/Ki-67 dual-staining cytology is a surrogate triage biomarker in cytology-based screening programs, with high performance for efficient risk stratification of women with mild cervical abnormalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据