ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Performance of P16
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
- Integrating Biomarkers into Cervical Cancer Screening-Advances in Diagnosis and Risk Prediction: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few articles have focused on the cytological misinterpretation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). Due to estrogen deficiency, cervical epithelial cells in postmenopausal women tend to show atrophic change that looks like HSIL on Papanicolaou-stained cytology slides, resulting in a higher rate of cytological misinterpretation. P16 Objective: To evaluate the role of P16 cytology in differentiating cytology HSIL from benign atrophy in women aged 50 years and above. Methods: Included in this analysis were women in a cervical cancer screening project conducted in central China who tested positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) and returned back for triage with complete data of primary HPV testing, liquid-based cytology (LBC) analysis, P16 immuno-stained cytology interpretation, and pathology diagnosis. The included patients were grouped by age: ≥50 (1,127 cases) and <50 years (1,430 cases). The accuracy of LBC and P16 cytology in the detection of pathology ≥HSIL was compared between the two groups, and the role of P16 immuno-stain in differentiating benign cervical lesions from cytology ≥HSIL was further analyzed. Results: One hundred sixty-seven women (14.8%; 167/1,127) in the ≥50 group and 255 (17.8%, 255/1,430) in the <50 group were pathologically diagnosed as HSIL (Path-HSIL). LBC [≥Atypical Squamous Cell Of Undetermined Significance (ASCUS)] and P16 cytology (positive) respectively detected 63.9% (163/255) and 90.2% (230/255) of the Path-≥HSIL cases in the <50 group and 74.3% (124/167) and 93.4% (124/167) of the Path-≥HSIL cases in the ≥50 group. LBC matched with pathology in 105 (41.2%) of the 255 Path-≥HSIL cases in the <50 group and 93 (55.7%) of the 167 Path-≥HSIL cases in the ≥50 group. There were five in the <50 group and 14 in the ≥50 group that were Path-≤LSIL cases, which were interpreted by LBC as HSIL, but negative in P16 cytology. Conclusion: P16 cytology facilitates differentiation of Path-≤LSIL from LBC-≥HSIL for women 50 years of age and above. It can be used in the lower-resource areas, where qualified cytologists are insufficient, as the secondary screening test for women aged ≥50 to avoid unnecessary biopsies and misinterpretation of LBC primary or secondary screening.
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.