Should we use risk selection tests for HPV 16 and/or 18 positive cases: Comparison of p16/Ki67 and cytology.

Major screening abnormalities in precolposcopic stage are tests results that imply direct referral to colposcopy (and/or expedited treatment) without performing additional high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+) risk selection testing. Currently, both clinically validated HSIL+ risk selection tests, reflex cytology and reflex p16/Ki67 dual staining (DS), are being compared for use in primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening to avoid possible overtreatment, but there is still no sufficient data available for their performance. Among 30 066 liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests results, a group of 332 women was selected with available high-risk types of HPV tests results with 16/18 limited genotyping, liquid-based cytology, DS, and histology results from standardized colposcopy with biopsy.

p16/Ki67 dual stain triage versus cytology in primary human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening with limited genotyping.

The introduction of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening requires the implementation of an appropriate triage strategy that will be effective in detecting high-grade cervical disease without losing diagnostic specificity. From the 30.066 screening tests results, a total of 1086 with available high-risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) with limited genotyping, cytology, and p16/Ki67 dual-stain were selected.

Triage Strategies for Non-16/Non-18 HPV-Positive Women in Primary HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening: p16/Ki67 Dual Stain vs. Cytology.

Background: In the context of primary HPV cervical cancer screening, the identification of minor screening abnormalities necessitates triage tests to optimize management and mitigate overtreatment. Currently, reflex cytology and reflex p16/Ki67 dual-stain (DS) are under scrutiny for their applicability in primary HPV-based screening. However, there remains a dearth of comprehensive data for comparing their performance.

European consensus statement on expert colposcopy.

Background: Following the publication of the European consensus statement on standards for essential colposcopy in 2020, the need for standards relating to more complex and challenging colposcopy practice was recognised. These standards relate to colposcopy undertaken in patients identified through cervical screening and tertiary referrals from colposcopists who undertake standard colposcopy only. This set of recommendations provides a review of the current literature and agreement on care for recognised complex cases.