SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
P16/Ki67 dual staining versus cytology for identifying high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+) in triage management of HR-HPV-positive women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe co-expression of P16 and Ki67 suggests the presence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, which makes P16/Ki67 dual staining a promising marker in cervical cancer screening. This study provides a systemic review of the established evidence on the performance of P16/Ki67 versus cytology in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+/CIN3+ among high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-positive women and HR-HPV-positive individuals with cytology-negative results for triage management.
methodsStudies published from database inception to April 26, 2024, were systematically searched. A total of 26 studies were eventually included in the study, comprising 26,424 women, with 14,625 classified as P16/Ki67-positive and 11,799 as P16/Ki67-negative.
resultsIn the triage management of HR-HPV-positive women, P16/Ki67 achieved sensitivities of 85% for CIN2+ and 88% for CIN3+, with specificities of 63% and 57%, respectively. In comparison, cytology showed lower sensitivities of 76% for CIN2+ and 79% for CIN3+, with lower specificities of 57% and 54%. In triage management of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive but cytology-negative women, 18.48% of the HPV-positive patients, initially missed by cytology, were correctly retrieved by the addition of P16/Ki67. A negative P16/Ki67 test result reduced the risk of underlying CIN3+ to 4% for HR-HPV-positive individuals and 1% for the HR-HPV-positive individuals with cytology-negative results, prompting a recommendation for follow-up at 1-year intervals.
conclusionP16/Ki67 exhibits diagnostic superiority over liquid-based cytology in detecting CIN2+/CIN3+, among HR-HPV-positive women. Furthermore, its ability to identify patients missed by cytology highlights its value as a complementary tool for triage of HR-HPV-positive but cytology-negative population. By effectively reducing unnecessary colposcopy referrals, P16/Ki67 conserves healthcare resources and improves outcomes.
trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42024567623.
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.