ArticleCancer management and research2020
Evaluating the Performance of p16
Article in Cancer management and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Biomarkers into Cervical Cancer Screening-Advances in Diagnosis and Risk Prediction: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cost-benefit analysis of p16Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- LncRNA-ANRIL regulates CDKN2A to promote malignant proliferation of Kasumi-1 cells.Cell division · 2025Article
- Prognostic value and early response stratification of a multi-biomarker panel in cervical cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The Expression of Testin, Ki-67 and p16 in Cervical Cancer Diagnostics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- The Application of Liquid-Based Cytological Detection for P16, Cytologic Evaluation and High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Clinical Evaluation.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- Triaging HPV-positive, cytology-negative cervical cancer screening results with extended HPV genotyping and p16BMC infectious diseases · 2021Observational
- Methodologies of Primary HPV Testing Currently Applied for Cervical Cancer Screening.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhen used for cervical cancer primary screening, liquid-based cytology (LBC) has a high specificity but a low sensitivity. For histological diagnosis of high-grade lesions, p16
methodsA total of 1197 cytology slides were immuno-stained using automatic p16
resultsIn combining two studies, there were 431 cases with biopsy pathology. They included 83 cases with CIN2+ and 41 cases with CIN3+. The p16 positivity rate increased with pathologic and cytologic severity (P<0.0001). For primary screening: p16 immuno-cytology was more specific than HPV testing and was similar in sensitivity. Also, p16 immuno-cytology compared favorably with routine LBC (≥ASC-US or ≥LSIL) in sensitivity and specificity. For secondary screening: after LBC screening, "Triaging ASC-US with p16" gave a higher specificity and a similar sensitivity as compared to the "Triaging ASC-US with hrHPV" algorithm. After HPV primary screening, p16 immuno-cytology was more specific than LBC (≥ASC-US); the calculated colposcopy referral rate was also decreased by using p16 immuno-cytology as triage. Triage of "HPV16/18 and p16" had higher specificity and similar sensitivity as compared to triage of "HPV16/18 and LBC ≥ASC-US".
conclusionFor primary screening, p16
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.