4.6 Review

Application of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining cytology in cervical cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 2654-2660

出版社

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/jca.32743

关键词

p16/Ki-67 dual-staining; cytology; HPV; cervical cancer screening; CIN

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31670788, 81172485]
  2. Program Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [20130171110007]
  3. Open Fund of Guangdong Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Functional Genes [2014B030301 028, 2017B030314021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cytology-based Papanicolaou test on and primary HPV screening have been widely used in the identification of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions, which is of great significance for the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. Patients diagnosed as ASCUS/LSIL usually need follow-up because some of them may develop into CIN2+. The consequences of women positive for HPV vary from person to person; some of them may progress into cervical dysplasia, reversible forms of precancerous lesions, and eventually invasive cervical cancer. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an effective biomarker to triage different patients according to the preliminary screening results. p16 acts as a cell cycle regulatory protein that induces cell cycle arrest, and Ki-67 is a cell proliferation marker. Under physiological conditions, they could not co-express in the same cervical epithelial cells. The co-expression of these two molecules suggests a deregulation of the cell cycle mediated by HR-HPV infection and predicts the presence of high-grade cervical epithelial lesions. There is increasing evidence that p16/Ki-67 dual-staining cytology can be used as an alternative biomarker, showing overall high sensitivity and specificity for identifying high-grade CIN and cervical cancer. In this review, we discuss the significance of p16/Ki-67 dual-staining and summarize its application in the screening and triaging of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions.

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

4.6
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