Back

High-risk HPV Prevalence and Distribution in Cervical Cancer Screening: Extended Genotyping in Correlation with Cytology and p16/Ki67 Dual Stain Results

Trzeszcz, M.; Mazurec, K.; Mazurec, M.; Jach, R.; Halon, A.

2025-02-10 obstetrics and gynecology
10.1101/2025.02.08.25321924 medRxiv
Show abstract

The prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) in cytology combined with p16/Ki67 status using limited and two types of extended HPV genotyping has not yet been described. A total of 32,724 screening tests results between 2015-2024 were included. The overall HR-HPV-positivity rate was 15.0%. The HR-HPV prevalence in limited genotyping group was 13.9%, in extended genotyping 1 (17.8%), in extended genotyping 2 (17.2%), with statistically significant difference in the proportions of positive/negative cases (p<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was noted between extended genotyping groups (p=0.706). Extended genotyping 1: the highest p16/Ki67-positivity was observed for HR-HPV 33/58 (100.0%) and 31 (58.8%), the lowest for HR-HPV 45 (18.2%), 18 (25.0%) and 59/56/66 (28.9%). Extended genotyping 2: the highest p16/Ki67-positivity was for HR-HPV 16 (66.7%) and 31/33/52/58 (58.8%). A combined approach, implementing new technologies, could help healthcare providers in more informed decisions about patient care, supporting the prevention of cervical precancer and cancer. Statement of SignificanceThe transition to HPV-based cervical cancer screening is progressively advancing. By investigating of HR-HPV prevalence and distribution in limited or extended genotyping, cytology and p16/Ki67 dual-stain, our study aimed to support evidence-based decision-making processes and help guide of medical interventions of public health policies targeted to incorporation of new technologies.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.