ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2016
Comparison Between Two Detection Methods for HPV16, HPV18 and P16Ink4a Biomarkers in Diagnosis of Abnormal Cervical Cytology
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of p16 and Ki67 Immunohistochemistry Expression in Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion with Cytohistomorphological Correlation.Iranian journal of pathology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women in many populations. While the Pap smear is a well established screening test it suffers from both false-positive and false-negative results in diagnosis of cancers and precancerous states. In this study, immunocytochemistry of the P16 biomarker and HPV-PCR were compared for their diagnostic potential. Materials and methods: In the study, we obtained pairs of specimens from 45 women with cervical dysplasia. One sample was placed in a liquid-based solution, and processed for staining of sections with antibodies to P16. HPV-PCR was performed on the other and the results obtained were analyzed by T-test using SPSS v. 15. Results: Using HPV-PCR 71% of the samples were found to be infected with either HPV 16 or HPV 18, and the rate of infection did not have a statistically significant relationship with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.253). In contrast, with immunocytochemistry evaluation of P16, 64% of the specimens were positive, but the percentage of positive results significantly increased with higher grades of dysplasia (p= 0.0001). Conclusion: Employment of the P16 marker as an optional test might be preferable over HPV-PCR for cervical dysplasia in our geographical region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.