Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27625065›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Performance of p16INK4a ELISA as a primary cervical cancer screening test among a large cohort of HIV-infected women in western Kenya: a 2-year cross-sectional study.

Tara J Wu, Karen Smith-McCune, Miriam Reuschenbach, Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz, May Maloba, Megan J Huchko

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Tara J WuSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Karen Smith-McCuneDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Miriam ReuschenbachDepartment of Applied Tumor Biology, Clinical Cooperation Unit, Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Cancer (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Magnus von Knebel DoeberitzDepartment of Applied Tumor Biology, Clinical Cooperation Unit, Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Cancer (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
May MalobaFamily AIDS Care and Education Services, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Megan J HuchkoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USGerman Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberg University · DEKenya Medical Research Institute · KE

Funding

Virology CoreP30AI027763 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MALLORY O JOHNSON · 1988 to 2026
$93.6M
CTSA: K12 COMPONENTKL2RR024130 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$19.3M
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024130NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027763
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA biomarker with increased specificity for cervical dysplasia compared with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing would be an attractive option for cervical cancer screening among HIV-infected women in resource-limited settings. p16(INK4a) has been explored as a biomarker for screening in general populations.

designA 2-year cross-sectional study.

setting2 large HIV primary care clinics in western Kenya.

participants1054 HIV-infected women in western Kenya undergoing cervical cancer screening as part of routine HIV care from October 2010 to November 2012.

interventionsParticipants underwent p16(INK4a) specimen collection and colposcopy. Lesions with unsatisfactory colposcopy or suspicious for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+; including CIN2/3 or invasive cervical cancer) were biopsied. Following biopsy, disease status was determined by histopathological diagnosis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of p16(INK4a) ELISA for CIN2+ detection among HIV-infected women and compared them to the test characteristics of current screening methods used in general as well as HIV-infected populations.

resultsAverage p16(INK4a) concentration in cervical samples was 37.4 U/mL. After colposcopically directed biopsy, 127 (12%) women were determined to have CIN2+. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.664 for p16(INK4a) to detect biopsy-proven CIN2+. At a p16(INK4a) cut-off level of 9 U/mL, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 89.0%, 22.9%, 13.6% and 93.8%, respectively. The overall p16(INK4a) positivity at a cut-off level of 9 U/mL was 828 (78.6%) women. There were 325 (30.8%) cases of correct p16(INK4a) prediction to detect or rule out CIN2+, and 729 (69.2%) cases of incorrect p16(INK4a) prediction.

conclusionsp16(INK4a) ELISA did not perform well as a screening test for CIN2+ detection among HIV-infected women due to low specificity. Our study contributes to the ongoing search for a more specific alternative to HPV testing for CIN2+ detection.

Indexed as

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayAdultBiomarkersCohort StudiesColposcopyCross-Sectional StudiesCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16Early Detection of CancerFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansKenyaLogistic ModelsPapillomavirus InfectionsPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyBiomarkersCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16cervical cancer screeningCIN2+HIVKenyap16INK4a ELISA

Identifiers

PMID27625065
PMCPMC5030582
OpenAlexW2520581958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.