Background: Although high risk human papilloma virus DNA (hr-HPV-DNA) test is the primary tool for cervical cancer screening, with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) serving as a triage test where Pap cytology is not available, the low intra-observer agreement associated with VIA means its reliability is limited and a more efficient test is still required. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of p16/Ki-67 cytology with VIA in the detection of cervical precancer and the feasibility as an alternative triage in the “see and treat strategy”. Methods: In a hospital-based cross-sectional study, we utilized stored provider-collected specimens from a previous study of women referred with cervical abnormalities to a tertiary hospital in Kisumu County, Kenya from February 2021 to November 2023. Specimens were tested with both Xpert and p16/ki-67 Immunostain. All hr-HPV positive women with cervical lesions were triaged using VIA and p16/Ki-67 cytology. CIN2 or worse (≥CIN2) were defined as the clinical end points. Results: The p16/ Ki- 67 Immunostaining showed a statistically significant higher sensitivity (84.6% vs. 59.0%%), specificity (44.0% vs. 62.0%), positive predictive value (28.2% vs. 28.8%) and negative predictive value (91.7% vs. 85.3%) compared to VIA examination. Conclusion: The p16/Ki-67 immunostaining for the detection of ≥CIN2 has shown high sensitivity and high negative predictive value in our study, which is comparable to several previous findings; implying that the assay is superior to VIA in identifying ≥CIN2 and can serve as an alternative tool for triaging primary HPV-positive women in the current “see and treat” strategy.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The institutional review board of JOOTRH provided ethics approval of the study number ERC.IB/VOL.1/602. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files