REVIEW ARTICLE
p16/Ki-67 dual-stain immunocytochemistry in precision cervical cancer prevention: immunoprofile and clinical decision-making
More details
Hide details
1
Division of Pathology and Clinical Cytology, University Hospital in Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
2
Corfamed Woman’s Health Center, Wroclaw, Poland
3
Division of Gynecologic Endocrinology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland
Submission date: 2026-05-02
Final revision date: 2026-05-04
Acceptance date: 2026-05-04
Publication date: 2026-06-25
Corresponding author
Martyna Trzeszcz
1. Division of Pathology and Clinical Cytology, University Hospital in Wroclaw, Borowska 213, 50-556 Wroclaw, Poland
2. Corfamed Woman’s Health Center, Kluczborska 37, 50-322 Wroclaw, Poland
Pol J Pathol 2026;77(2):195-202
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Cervical cancer prevention has undergone a major shift with the implementation of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening, which offers high sensitivity but limited specificity due to the detection of transient infections. This has created a need for triage methods capable of identifying infections associated with clinically meaningful disease. Primary HPV testing provides a high level of reassurance when negative; however, individuals with a positive result require additional evaluation using triage methods that effectively identify precancerous lesions while avoiding unnecessary colposcopy referrals. This review addresses the role of p16/Ki-67 dual-stain (DS) immunocytochemistry as a biomarker of transforming HPV infection, with a focus on HPV-based screening settings. We discuss its biological basis and diagnostic performance in comparison with cytology, with particular attention to the principles and practical aspects of DS interpretation in routine cytopathological practice. We also summarize current evidence, including data from national studies and routine clinical practice, demonstrating that DS can be effectively integrated into screening pathways and support more informed clinical decision-making. Its increasing use reflects the broader transition toward biologically informed cervical cancer prevention.
REFERENCES (31)
1.
Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2020; 8: e191-e203.
2.
Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2002; 55: 244-265.
3.
Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, et al; International HPV screening working group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 383: 524-532.
4.
Castle PE, Stoler MH, Wright TC Jr, Sharma A, Wright TL, Behrens CM. Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 880-890.
5.
Schiffman M, Wentzensen N. From human papillomavirus to cervical cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2016; 16: 593-604.
6.
Doorbar J, Quint W, Banks L, Bravo IG, Stoler M, Broker TR, et al. The biology and life-cycle of human papillomaviruses. Vaccine 2012; 30: F55-70.
7.
Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, Chelmow D, Einstein MH, Garcia F, et al; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2020; 24: 102-131.
8.
Arbyn M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Cuschieri K, Kocjan BJ, et al. Which high-risk HPV assays fulfil criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening? Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: 817-826.
9.
Schmidt D, Bergeron C, Denton KJ, Ridder R. p16/Ki-67 dual-stain cytology in cervical cancer screening. Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119: 158-166.
10.
World Health Organization. WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention: use of dual-stain cytology to triage women after a positive test for human papillomavirus (HPV). 2nd ed. WHO, Geneva 2024.
11.
Clarke MA, Wentzensen N, Perkins RB, Garcia F, Arrindell D, Chelmow D, et al; Enduring consensus cervical cancer screening and management guidelines committee. recommendations for use of p16/Ki67 dual stain for management of individuals testing positive for human papillomavirus. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2024; 28: 124-130.
12.
Thrall MJ, McCarthy E, Mito JK, Rao J. Triage options for positive high-risk HPV results from HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a review of the potential alternatives to Papanicolaou test cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2025; 14: 11-22.
13.
Gori S, Venturelli F, Carozzi F, Giorgi Rossi P, Del Mistro A. Italian guidelines for cervical cancer screening. Multisocietal recommendations on the use of biomarkers in HPV screening with risk-based approach and GRADE methodology. Br J Cancer 2025; 133: 1076-1084.
14.
Ikenberg H, Bergeron C, Schmidt D, Griesser H, Alameda F, Angeloni C, et al. Screening for cervical cancer precursors with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: results of the PALMS study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1550-1557.
15.
Wright TC Jr, Behrens CM, Ranger-Moore J, Rehm S, Sharma A, Stoler MH, et al. Triaging HPV-positive women with p16/ Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: results from a sub-study nested into the ATHENA trial. Gynecol Oncol 2017; 144: 51-56.
16.
Wright TC Jr, Stoler MH, Ranger-Moore J, Fang Q, Volkir P, Safaeian M, et al. Clinical validation of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained - cytology triage of HPV-positive women: results from the IMPACT trial. Int J Cancer 2022; 150: 461-471.
17.
Petry KU, Schmidt D, Scherbring S, Luyten A, Reinecke- Lüthge A, Bergeron C, et al. Triaging Pap cytology negative, HPV positive cervical cancer screening results with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 121: 505-509.
18.
Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Castle PE, Schiffman M, Tokugawa D, Poitras N, et al. Five-year risk of cervical precancer following p16/ki-67 dual-stain triage of HPV-positive women. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5: 181-186.
19.
Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE, Smith K, Mathews C, Gold MA, et al. Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 4154-4162.
20.
Waldstrøm M, Christensen RK, Ørnskov D. Evaluation of p16(INK4a)/Ki-67 dual stain in comparison with an mRNA human papillomavirus test on liquid-based cytology samples with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 136-145.
21.
Killeen JL, Dye T, Grace C, Hiraoka M. Improved abnormal Pap smear triage using cervical cancer biomarkers. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2014; 18: 1-7.
22.
Gage JC, Raine-Bennett T, Schiffman M, Clarke MA, Cheung LC, Poitras NE, et al. The improving risk informed HPV screening (IRIS) study: design and baseline characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022; 31: 486-492.
23.
Risley C, Stewart MW, Geisinger KR, Hiser LM, Morgan JC, Owens KJ, et al. STRIDES – studying risk to improve disparities in cervical cancer in Mississippi – design and baseline results of a statewide cohort study. Prev Med 2021; 153: 106740.
24.
Trzeszcz M, Mazurec M, Jach R, Mazurec K, Kotkowska-Szeps I, Kania M, et al. p16/Ki67 dual stain triage versus cytology in primary human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening with limited genotyping. J Med Virol 2023; 95: e29271.
25.
Mazurec K, Trzeszcz M, Mazurec M, Streb J, Halon A, Jach R. Triage strategies for Non-16/Non-18 HPV-positive women in primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening: p16/ki67 dual stain vs. cytology. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 5095.
26.
Mazurec K, Trzeszcz M, Mazurec M, Streb J, Halon A, Jach R. Should we use risk selection tests for HPV 16 and/or 18 positive cases: comparison of p16/Ki67 and cytology. J Med Virol 2024; 96: e29500.
27.
Trzeszcz M, Mazurec M, Jach R, Mazurec K, Jach Z, Kotkowska- Szeps I, et al. Is primary HPV with secondary p16/Ki67 dualstain an alternative HSIL-risk detection strategy in cervical cancer screening for women under 30 years? Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11: 2012.
28.
Jach R, Mazurec M, Trzeszcz M, Zimmer M. Possible deferral of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients with abnormal screening tests results in cervical cancer secondary prevention in current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interim guidelines of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the Polish Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathophysiology. Ginekol Pol 2020; 91: 428-431.
29.
Jach R, Mazurec M, Trzeszcz M, Zimmer M, Kedzia W, Wolski H. Cervical cancer screening in Poland in current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: interim guidelines of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians and the Polish Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathophysiology – a summary January 2021. Ginekol Pol 2021; 92: 165-173.
30.
Kyrgiou M, Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Bosch FX, Dillner J, Jit M, et al. Cervical screening: ESGO-EFC position paper of the EuEuropean Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Federation of Colposcopy (EFC). Br J Cancer 2020; 123: 510-517.
31.
Wentzensen N, Lahrmann B, Clarke MA, Kinney W, Tokugawa D, Poitras N, et al. Accuracy and efficiency of deep-learningbased automation of dual stain cytology in cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 72-79.