ArticleInternational journal of cancer2017
Role of quantitative p16
Article in International journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical screening: ESGO-EFC position paper of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Federation of Colposcopy (EFC).British journal of cancer · 2020Review
- The correlation of HPV16 and HPV18 with local vaginal immunity after the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- The role of low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 11 as a tumor promoter in cervical cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Significance of p53-Binding Protein 1 Nuclear Foci in Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions: Association With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection and P16Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Visual interpretation of cervical biopsies is subjective and variable, generally showing fair to moderate inter-reader agreement in distinguishing high from low grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We investigated the performance of two objective p16 quantitative tests in comparison with visual assessment: (i) p16-mRNA assay and (ii) digital analysis of sections stained for p16 protein. The primary analysis considered 232 high-risk human papilloma virus positive (HPV+) samples from diagnostic cervical specimens. A p16 RT-qPCR (p16-mRNA assay) was run on mRNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections. Two p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) readings, a visual read by a histopathologist (Visual IHC) and a digital read of a high-resolution scan (Digital IHC), were done on adjacent sections. The worst reviewed CIN grade (agreed by at least two histopathologists) from up to two biopsies and a loop excision was taken, with CIN2/3 as the primary endpoint. Visual IHC attained a specificity of 70% (95%CI 61-77) for 85% (95%CI 77-91%) sensitivity. The four-point Visual IHC staining area under the curve (AUC) was 0.77 (95%CI 0.71-0.82), compared with 0.71 (95%CI 0.64-0.77) for p16-mRNA and 0.67 (95%CI 0.60-0.74) for Digital IHC. Spearman rank-order correlations were: visual to p16-mRNA 0.41, visual to digital 0.49 and p16-mRNA to digital: 0.22. The addition of p16-mRNA assay to visual reading of p16 IHC improved the AUC from 0.77 to 0.84 (p = 0.0049). p16-mRNA testing may be complementary to visual IHC p16 staining for a more accurate diagnosis of CIN, or perhaps a substitute in locations with a lack of skilled pathologists.
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.