Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Effective triage of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women is critical for cervical cancer prevention. This study evaluated and compared PAX1 methylation ( PAX1 m ) and the p16/Ki67 immunohistochemistry dual-stain score (IDS) for risk stratification of high-grade cervical lesions. This retrospective study included 183 women with HPV infections. PAX1 m levels (ΔCp) were quantified, and a three-tier grading system (Grade 1: ΔCp>12.48; Grade 2:8.52~12.48; Grade 3: ΔCp≤8.52) was established based on optimal cut-offs for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2 +) and CIN3+. IDS (0–6) was categorized as 0–2, 3–4, and 5–6. Correlations of PAX1 m Grade and IDS Subgroup with pathological outcomes (≤ CIN1, CIN2, CIN3 +) were analyzed using Kendall's tau-b statistics. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent predictors. Both PAX1 m grade and IDS subgroups increased significantly with lesion severity ( P < 0.001). PAX1 m Grade showed a stronger correlation (Kendall's tau-b = 0.454 vs. 0.418) with pathological outcomes than the IDS Subgroup. Multivariable analysis confirmed PAX1 m Grade 3 as a strong independent predictor for CIN3+ (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 25.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9–91.8), demonstrating a larger effect size than IDS Subgroups 3–4 (OR = 8.7) or HPV16/18 positivity (OR = 18.2). The combination of PAX1 m grade and IDS subgroups stratified the population into distinct risk phenotypes. Among women with PAX1 m Grade 3 and IDS 3–6, 55.1% had CIN3+ and 40.8% had CIN2. Among those with PAX1 m Grade 1 and an IDS of 0–4, 67.4% had ≤ CIN1. The intermediate PAX1 m Grade 2 group exhibited heterogeneous distribution across the IDS Subgroups, which the combination helped resolve. In this cohort, the three-tier PAX1 m grading system showed a potential advantage over the IDS in terms of lesion severity. The combination of PAX1 m Grade and IDS Subgroup allowed further stratification of risk, particularly within the intermediate-grade categories. These preliminary proof-of-concept findings support further evaluation of this combined biomarker strategy in prospective externally validated cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: