Value of CCNA1 promoter methylation in triaging ASC-US cytology

Background: Using HPV testing to triage ASC-US still has some problems of unnecessary colposcopy in many cases. A previous study reported that methylation of CCNA1, a tumor suppressor gene, can differentiate between low and high grade lesions.  This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic values and application of CCNA1 methylation in the patients with ASC-US group. Materials and Methods: Cross sectional analytic study was conducted in the patients with ASC-US cytology. HPV DNA testing and CCNA1 promoter methylation testing were performed.  The patients were sent for colposcopic examination and biopsy. Biopsy results were considered as gold standard.  Diagnostic test of HPV test and CCNA1 methylation test were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), likelihood ratio for test positive and negative and 95% confidence interval. Results: One hundred and seventy patients were enrolled. Mean age was 39.7 years old.  HR-HPV was positive in 70% of the patients.  HPV type 16, type 18 and non-16,18 were 12.4%, 4.7% and 42.4%, respectively. CIN2+ were found in 12.4% (21 cases). CCNA1 promoter methylation was positive in 5 cases.  CCNA1 had high specificity 99.3%, NPV 89.2% and PPV 80% in detection of CIN2+ but sensitivity was 19%. Likelihood ratio for positive test was 28.4 and likelihood ratio for negative test was 0.8.  HPV test had sensitivity of 90.5% and NPV of 95.9% but low specificity and PPV as 31.5% and 15.7%, respectively. Conclusion: CCNA1 promoter methylation testing had very high specificity, likelihood ratio for the positive test and PPV (99.3%, 28.4 and 80.0, respectively).  Therefore, CCNA1 promoter methylation test may be used in the HPV DNA positive cases to classify the urgency of colposcopy and the colposcopist should pay more attention to CCNA1 positive patients because of their higher chance to identify the significant lesions.     

Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample

High‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA tests have excellent sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or higher (CIN2+). A drawback of hrHPV screening, however, is modest specificity. Therefore, hrHPV‐positive women might need triage to reduce adverse events and costs associated with unnecessary colposcopy. We compared the performance of HPV16/18 genotyping with a predefined DNA methylation triage test (S5) based on target regions of the human gene EPB41L3, and viral late gene regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and HPV33. Assays were run using exfoliated cervical specimens from 710 women attending routine screening, of whom 38 were diagnosed with CIN2+ within a year after triage to colposcopy based on cytology and 341 were hrHPV positive. Sensitivity and specificity of the investigated triage methods were compared by McNemar's test. At the predefined cutoff, S5 showed better sensitivity than HPV16/18 genotyping (74% vs 54%, P = 0.04) in identifying CIN2+ in hrHPV‐positive women, and similar specificity (65% vs 71%, P = 0.07). When the S5 cutoff was altered to allow equal sensitivity to that of genotyping, a significantly higher specificity of 91% was reached (P < 0.0001). Thus, a DNA methylation test for the triage of hrHPV‐positive women on original screening specimens might be a valid approach with better performance than genotyping.     

CCNA1 Promoter Methylation: a Potential Marker for Grading Papanicolaou Smear Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions

Background: From our previous study, we established that cyclin A1 (CCNA1) promoter methylation isstrongly correlated with multistep progression of HPV-associated cervical cancer, suggesting potential use as adiagnostic maker of disease. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to assess the prevalence of CCNA1promoter methylation in residual cervical cells isolated from liquid-based cytology that underwent hrHPV DNAscreening for cervical cancer, and then to evaluate this marker for diagnostic accuracy using parameters likesensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratio. Methods: In this retrospective study, histopathologywas used as the gold standard method with specimens separated into the following groups: negative (n=31), lowgradesquamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL, n=34) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse(HSIL+, n=32). The hrHPV was detected by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and CCNA1 promoter methylation wasexamined by CCNA1 duplex methylation specific PCR. Results: The results showed the frequencies of CCNA1promoter methylation were 0%, 5.88% and 83.33%, while the percentages of hrHPV were 66.67%, 82.35% and100% in the negative, LSIL and HSIL+ groups, respectively. Although hrHPV infection showed high frequencyin all three groups, it could not differentiate between the different groups and grades of precancerous lesions. Incontrast, CCNA1 promoter methylation clearly distinguished between negative/LSIL and HSIL+, with high levelsof all statistic parameters. Conclusion: CCNA1 promoter methylation is a potential marker for distinguishingbetween histologic negative/LSIL and HSIL+using cervical cytology samples.     

The clinical value of HPV genotyping in triage of women with high‐risk‐HPV‐positive self‐samples

Cytology alone, or combined with HPV16/18 genotyping, might be an acceptable method for triage in hrHPV‐cervical cancer screening. Previously studied HPV‐genotype based triage algorithms are based on cytology performed without knowledge of hrHPV status. The aim of this study was to explore the value of hrHPV genotyping combined with cytology as triage tool for hrHPV‐positive women. 520 hrHPV‐positive women were included from a randomised controlled self‐sampling trial on screening non‐attendees (PROHTECT‐3B). Eighteen baseline triage strategies were evaluated for cytology and hrHPV genotyping (Roche Cobas 4800) on physician‐sampled triage material. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), referral rate, and number of referrals needed to diagnose (NRND) were calculated for CIN2+ and CIN3+. A triage strategy was considered acceptable if the NPV for CIN3+ was ≥98%, combined with maintenance or improvement of sensitivity and an increase in specificity in reference to the comparator, being cytology with a threshold of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC‐US). Three triage strategies met the criteria: HPV16+ and/or ≥LSIL; HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL; (HPV16+ and/or HPV18+) and/or ≥HSIL. Combining HPV16+ and/or ≥HSIL yielded the highest specificity (74.9%, 95% CI 70.5–78.9), with a sensitivity (94.4%, 95% CI 89.0–97.7) similar to the comparator (93.5%, 95% CI 87.7–97.1), and a decrease in referral rate from 52.2% to 39.5%. In case of prior knowledge of hrHPV presence, triage by cytology testing can be improved by adjusting its threshold, and combining it with HPV16/18 genotyping. These strategies improve the referral rate and specificity for detecting CIN3+ lesions, while maintaining adequate sensitivity.     

Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions

Low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) is a common cytologic finding in cervical screening, yet only about 10–20% have significant histologic abnormalities and these are almost always positive for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV). This analysis aims to clarify the role of hrHPV DNA testing in the triage of women with LSIL cytology. In the ATHENA screening trial, we examined 1,084 cases of LSIL, of which 925 had an evaluable biopsy, to determine the extent to which hrHPV testing can identify those patients who have precursor lesions in need of immediate clinical referral and those who have changes more likely to regress spontaneously. Overall, 71.2% of LSIL cases were hrHPV positive, but the prevalence was age dependent, with only 56.1% in women ≥40 years. Among women with LSIL, 11.6% (107/925) had a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) histologic diagnosis and, of these, only nine were hrHPV negative. For CIN3+, 91.7% (44/48) of women with LSIL were hrHPV positive. The negative predictive value of hrHPV testing for CIN3+ in LSIL was 100% for women aged ≥40 years. Women who were HPV16 positive had a higher positive predictive value for CIN2+ (25.4%) than those who were positive for 12 other pooled hrHPV types (11.5%). Testing for hrHPV in women with LSIL is effective in identifying high‐grade cervical lesions, thereby avoiding unnecessary referrals to colposcopy and potential over‐treatment of non‐progressive lesions, especially for women aged ≥40 years.     

JAM3 methylation status as a biomarker for diagnosis of preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the cervix

DNA methylation is clinically relevant to important tumorigenic mechanisms. This study evaluated the methylation status of candidate genes in cervical neoplasia and determined their diagnostic performance in clinical practice. Cervical cancer and normal cervix tissue was used to select the top 5 discriminating loci among 27 loci in 4 genes (CCNA1, CADM1, DAPK1, JAM3), and one locus of JAM3 (region M4) was identified and confirmed with 267 and 224 cervical scrapings from 2 independent colposcopy referral studies. For patients with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance and those with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, with JAM3-M4 compared to a triage marker of hrHPV testing, the specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 CIN3 and cancer cases (CIN3+) / no neoplasia and CIN1 (CIN1−) was significantly increased, from 21.88 to 81.82 and 15.38 to 85.18, respectively. The corresponding positive predictive value (PPV) was increased from 26.47 to 57.14 and 18.52 to 63.64, respectively. For hrHPV-positive patients, compared to a triage marker of cytology testing, JAM3-M4 showed increased specificity and PPV, from 30.67 to 87.65 and 38.82 to 82.14, respectively. We assessed whether JAM3-M4 could distinguish productive from transforming CIN2; the coincidence rate of JAM3-M4 and P16 was as high as 60.5%.     

Combined CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation analysis to detect (pre-)malignant cervical lesions in high-risk HPV-positive women

Given the lower specificity for high-grade cervical lesions of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing compared to cytology, additional triage testing for hrHPV test-positive women is needed to detect high-grade cervical lesions. Here, we tested whether combined methylation analysis for cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T-lymphocyte maturation associated protein (MAL), both functionally involved in cervical carcinogenesis, could serve as such a triage marker. Four quantitative methylation-specific PCRs (qMSP), two for CADM1 (regions M12 and M18) and MAL (regions M1 and M2) each, were applied to 261 cervical tissue specimens ranging from no neoplasia to carcinoma. When qMSPs were combined and positivity for at least one of the qMSPs in the combination was taken into account, the highest positivity rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) lesions (97%) and squamous cell- and adeno-carcinomas (99%) were obtained by combining a single CADM1 marker with a single MAL marker. Subsequent qMSP analysis of 70 GP5+/6+-PCR hrHPV-positive scrapings revealed that a two-marker panel consisting of CADM1-M18 and MAL-M1 was most discriminative, detecting 90% of women with CIN3 (n = 30), whereas it showed a positive result in only 13.5% of women without cervical disease (n = 40). Finally, we applied hrHPV GP5+/6+-PCR testing followed by CADM1-M18/MAL-M1 methylation analysis to a cohort of 79 women visiting the outpatient colposcopy clinic. hrHPV testing revealed a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 33% for CIN3+. Additional CADM1-M18/MAL-M1 methylation analysis on the hrHPV-positive women increased the specificity to 78% with a sensitivity of 70%. In conclusion, the methylation marker panel CADM1-M18 and MAL-M1 may serve as an alternative molecular triage tool for hrHPV-positive women.     

Triage using HPV-testing in persistent borderline and mildly dyskaryotic smears: proposal for new guidelines

In the Netherlands 2% of cervical smears in the cervical cancer screening program are read as borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cytology (BMD smear). Only in about 10% of these women a high-grade CIN lesion (CIN II-III) is present; therefore referral is for the majority unnecessary. In our study triage with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing was used to identify women at risk for development of high-grade CIN lesions after a repeat BMD smear. A "wait-and-see" period was incorporated allowing clearance of HPV and regression of the lesion. Women with a low-grade lesion, irrespective of their HPV status, were monitored at 12 months; women with a high-grade lesion were monitored at 6 and 12 months. Fifty-one of the 105 women (49%) were hrHPV negative at baseline; none of them showed progression of the lesion within the first year of follow-up (NPV 100%). High-grade CIN was present in 1 patient who was HPV negative at baseline (2%); she demonstrated regression after 12 months. Nineteen of the hrHPV positive women (35%) demonstrated a high-grade CIN lesion at baseline and 3 cleared hrHPV after 6 months, with a subsequent regression of CIN. Ten women remained hrHPV positive with persistence of high-grade CIN and were eventually treated. At baseline, 35 hrHPV positive women demonstrated a low-grade lesion, 19 remained hrHPV positive after 12 months and 5 developed high-grade CIN. Sixteen out of the 35 cleared the hrHPV infection without progression of the lesion. In conclusion, triage, using hrHPV testing for women with persistent BMD cytology, can select women who are not at risk for development of high-grade CIN. We recommend return to the screening program without referral for colposcopic examination if hrHPV is absent. For hrHPV positive women, a repeat hrHPV test after another 6 months is suggested. Referral is only required if persistence of hrHPV is established.     

A DNA methylation classifier of cervical precancer based on human papillomavirus and human genes

Testing for high‐risk (hr) types of human papillomavirus (HPV) is highly sensitive as a screening test of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic (CIN2/3) disease, the precursor of cervical cancer. However, it has a relatively low specificity. Our objective was to develop a prediction rule with a higher specificity, using combinations of human and HPV DNA methylation. Exfoliated cervical specimens from colposcopy‐referral cohorts in London were analyzed for DNA methylation levels by pyrosequencing in the L1 and L2 regions of HPV16, HPV18, HPV31 and human genes EPB41L3, DPYS and MAL. Samples from 1,493 hrHPV‐positive women were assessed and of these 556 were found to have CIN2/3 at biopsy; 556 tested positive for HPV16 (323 CIN2/3), 201 for HPV18 (73 CIN2/3) and 202 for HPV31 (98 CIN2/3). The prediction rule included EPB41L3 and HPV and had area under curve 0.80 (95% CI 0.78–0.82). For 90% sensitivity, specificity was 36% (33–40) and positive predictive value (PPV) was 46% (43–48). By HPV type, 90% sensitivity corresponded to the following specificities and PPV, respectively: HPV16, 38% (32–45) and 67% (63–71); HPV18, 53% (45–62) and 52% (45–59); HPV31, 39% (31–49) and 58% (51–65); HPV16, 18 or 31, 44% (40–49) and 62% (59–65) and other hrHPV 17% (14–21) and 21% (18–24). We conclude that a methylation assay in hrHPV‐positive women might improve PPV with minimal sensitivity loss.     

Reliable identification of women with CIN3+ using hrHPV genotyping and methylation markers in a cytology-screened referral population

Cervical screening aims to identify women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 (HSIL/CIN2-3) or invasive cervical cancer (ICC). Identification of women with severe premalignant lesions or ICC (CIN3+) could ensure their rapid treatment and prevent overtreatment. We investigated high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection with genotyping and methylation of FAM19A4/miR124-2 for detection of CIN3+ in 538 women attending colposcopy for abnormal cytology. All women had an additional cytology with hrHPV testing (GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA+), genotyping (HPV16/18, HPV16/18/31/45), and methylation analysis (FAM19A4/miR124-2) and at least one biopsy. CIN3+ detection was studied overall and in women <30 (n = 171) and ≥30 years (n = 367). Positivity for both rather than just one methylation markers increased in CIN3, and all ICC was positive for both. Overall sensitivity and specificity for CIN3+ were, respectively, 90.3% (95%CI 81.3–95.2) and 31.8% (95%CI 27.7–36.1) for hrHPV, 77.8% (95%CI 66.9–85.8) and 69.3% (95%CI 65.0–73.3) for methylation biomarkers and 93.1% (95%CI 84.8–97.0) and 49.4% (95%CI 44.8–53.9) for combined HPV16/18 and/or methylation positivity. For CIN3, hrHPV was found in 90.9% (95%CI 81.6–95.8), methylation positivity in 75.8% (95%CI 64.2–84.5) and HPV16/18 and/or methylation positivity in 92.4% (95%CI 83.5–96.7). In women aged ≥30, the sensitivity of combined HPV16/18 and methylation was increased (98.2%, 95%CI 90.6–99.7) with a specificity of 46.3% (95%CI 40.8–51.9). Combination of HPV16/18 and methylation analysis was very sensitive and offered improved specificity for CIN3+, opening the possibility of rapid treatment for these women and follow-up for women with potentially regressive, less advanced, HSIL/CIN2 lesions.     

Age-dependent prevalence of 14 high-risk HPV types in the Netherlands: implications for prophylactic vaccination and screening

We determined the prevalence of type-specific hrHPV infections in the Netherlands on cervical scrapes of 45 362 women aged 18-65 years. The overall hrHPV prevalence peaked at the age of 22 with peak prevalence of 24%. Each of the 14 hrHPV types decreased significantly with age (P-values between 0.0009 and 0.03). The proportion of HPV16 in hrHPV-positive infections also decreased with age (OR=0.76 (10-year scale), 95% CI=0.67-0.85), and a similar trend was observed for HPV16 when selecting hrHPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.56-1.01). In women eligible for routine screening (age 29-61 years) with confirmed CIN2+, 65% was infected with HPV16 and/or HPV18. When HPV16/18-positive infections in women eligible for routine screening were discarded, the positive predictive value of cytology for the detection of CIN2+ decreased from 27 to 15%, the positive predictive value of hrHPV testing decreased from 26 to 15%, and the predictive value of a double-positive test (positive HPV test and a positive cytology) decreased from 54 to 41%. In women vaccinated against HPV16/18, screening remains important to detect cervical lesions caused by non-HPV16/18 types. To maintain a high-positive predictive value, screening algorithms must be carefully re-evaluated with regard to the screening modalities and length of the screening interval.     

The Value of a Novel Panel of Cervical Cancer Biomarkers for Triage of HPV Positive Patients and for Detecting Disease Progression

In the era of primary vaccination against HPV and at the beginning of the low prevalence of cervical lesions, introduction of screening methods that can distinguish between low- and high-grade lesions is necessary in order to maintain the positive predictive value of screening. This case-control study included 562 women who attended cervical screening or were referred for colposcopy and 140 disease free controls, confirmed by histology and/or cytology. The cases were stratified by age. Using routine exfoliated liquid based cytological samples RT-PCR measurements of biomarker genes, high-risk HPV testing and liquid based cytology were performed and used to evaluate different testing protocols including sets of genes/tests with different test cut-offs for the diagnostic panels. Three new panels of cellular biomarkers for improved triage of hrHPV positive women (diagnostic panel) and for prognostic assessment of CIN lesions were proposed. The diagnostic panel (PIK3AP1, TP63 and DSG3) has the potential to distinguish cytologically normal hrHPV+ women from hrHPV+ women with CIN2+. The prognostic gene panels (KRT78, MUC5AC, BPIFB1 and CXCL13, TP63, DSG3) have the ability to differentiate hrHPV+ CIN1 and carcinoma cases. The diagnostic triage panel showed good likelihood ratios for all age groups. The panel showed age-unrelated performance and even better diagnostic value under age 30, a unique feature among the established cervical triage tests. The prognostic gene-panels demonstrated good discriminatory power and oncogenic, anti-oncogenic grouping of genes. The study highlights the potential for the gene expression panels to be used for diagnostic triage and lesion prognostics in cervical cancer screening.     

Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage of HPV positive women to identify those at risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse. We conducted a blinded case–control study within the HPV FOCAL randomized cervical cancer screening trial of women aged 25–65 to examine whether baseline methylation testing using the S5 classifier provided triage performance similar to an algorithm relying on cytology and HPV genotyping. Groups were randomly selected from women with known HPV/cytology results and pathology outcomes. Group 1: 104 HPV positive (HPV+), abnormal cytology (54 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 2: 103 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV persistence at 12 mo. (53 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 3: 50 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV clearance at 12 mo. (assumed <CIN2), total n=257. For the combined groups, S5 risk score CIN2/3 relative sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with other triage approaches. Methylation showed a highly significant increasing trend with disease severity. For CIN3, S5 relative sensitivity and specificity were: 93.2% (95%CI: 81.4–98.0) and 41.8% (35.2–48.8), compared to 86.4% (75.0–95.7) and 49.8% (43.1–56.6) respectively for combined abnormal cytology/HPV16/18 positivity (differences not statistically significant at 5% level); adjusted PPVs were 18.2% (16.2–20.4) and 19.3% (16.6–22.2) respectively. S5 was also positive in baseline specimens from eight cancers detected during or after trial participation. The S5 methylation score had high sensitivity and PPV for CIN3, compatible with US and European thresholds for colposcopy referral. Methylation signatures can identify most HPV positive women at increased risk of cervical cancer from their baseline screening specimens.     

Performance of a new HPV and biomarker assay in the management of hrHPV positive women: Subanalysis of the ongoing multicenter TRACE clinical trial (n > 6,000) to evaluate POU4F3 methylation as a potential biomarker of cervical precancer and cancer

The ongoing Triage and Risk Assessment of Cervical Precancer by Epigenetic Biomarker (TRACE) prospective, multicenter study aimed to provide a clinical evaluation of the CONFIDENCE? assay, which comprises a human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and a human epigenetic biomarker test. Between 2013 and 2015 over 6,000 women aged 18 or older were recruited in Hungary. Liquid‐based cytology (LBC), high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) DNA detection and single target host gene methylation test of the promoter sequence of the POU4F3 gene by quantitative methylation‐specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were performed from the same liquid‐based cytology sample. The current analysis is focused on the baseline cross‐sectional clinical results of 5,384 LBC samples collected from subjects aged 25 years or older. The performance of the CONFIDENCE HPV? test was found to be comparable to the cobas® HPV test with good agreement. When applying the CONFIDENCE Marker? test alone in hrHPV positives, it showed significantly higher sensitivity with matching specificity compared to LBC‐based triage. For CIN3+ histological endpoint in the age group of 25–65 and 30–65, the methylation test of POU4F3 achieved relative sensitivities of 1.74 (95% CI: 1.25–2.33) and 1.64 (95% CI: 1.08–2.27), respectively, after verification bias adjustment. On the basis of our findings, POU4F3 methylation as a triage test of hrHPV positives appears to be a noteworthy method. We can reasonably assume that its quantitative nature offers the potential for a more objective and discriminative risk assessment tool in the prevention and diagnostics of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions and cervical cancer.     

HPV16 L1 and L2 DNA methylation predicts high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with mildly abnormal cervical cytology

DNA methylation changes in human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) DNA are common and might be important for identifying women at increased risk of cervical cancer. Using recently published data from Costa Rica we developed a classification score to differentiate women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) from those with no evident high‐grade lesions. Here, we aim to investigate the performance of the score using data from the UK. Exfoliated cervical cells at baseline and 6‐months follow‐up were analyzed in 84 women selected from a randomized clinical trial of women undergoing surveillance for low‐grade cytology. Selection of women for the methylation study was based on detectable HPV16 in the baseline sample. Purified DNA was bisulfite converted, amplified and pyrosequenced at selected CpG sites in the viral genome (URR, E6, L1 and L2), with blinding of laboratory personnel to the clinical data. The primary measure was a predefined score combining the mean methylation in L1 and any methylation in L2. At the second follow‐up visit, 73/84 (87%) women were HPV16 positive and of these 25 had a histopathological diagnosis of CIN2/3. The score was significantly associated with CIN2/3 (area under curve = 0.74, p = 0.002). For a cutoff with 92% sensitivity, colposcopy could have been avoided in 40% (95% CI 27–54%) of HPV16 positive women without CIN2/3; positive predictive value was 44% (32–58%) and negative predictive value was 90% (71–97%). We conclude that quantitative DNA methylation assays could help to improve triage among HPV16 positive women.     

The study of the combination detection of HPV-DNA and p16INK4a in cervical lesions

The objective of this study is to detect the infection of human papillomavirus (HPV) and the expression of p16(INK4a) in cervical lesions and to investigate the interaction between hrHPV and p16(INK4a) for cervical lesions and its diagnostic efficiency. hrHPV-DNA was detected by the hybrid capture II (HC-II) system. Immunochemical method was used to detect the expression of p16(INK4a), and histopathologic test was performed to identify cervical lesions. χ(2) test and Spearman's rank correlation were used for statistical analysis. Additive effects model was used to analyze the interaction. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated with SPSS 13.0. hrHPV and p16(INK4a) positive rate increased (P < 0.05) with histopathologic diagnosis increasing. The positive rates of hrHPV and p16(INK4a) in negative or chronic inflammation were statistically lower than that in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1, CIN2, CIN3, and squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) (P < 0.05), respectively. There was a positive interaction between hrHPV and p16(INK4a), relative excess risk of interaction (RERI) was 52.49, attributable proportions of interaction (API) were 72.34%, and the synergy index (S) was 3.75. The specificity and AUC of combining hrHPV with p16(INK4a) were statistically higher than hrHPV or p16(INK4a) alone (P < 0.05). hrHPV and p16(INK4a) are useful markers for the early diagnosis of cervical lesions. A positive interaction between hrHPV and p16(INK4a) is seen. The combination of hrHPV and p16(INK4a) has a higher diagnostic accuracy than hrHPV or p16(INK4a) alone in diagnosis of cervical lesions.     

Comparison of p16INK4a Immunocytochemistry with the HPV Polymerase Chain Reaction in Predicting High Grade Cervical Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions

Aim: To compare p16INK4a immunocytochemistry with the HPV polymerase chain reaction in predictinghigh grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic case-control studywas conducted from January 2010 until December 2010. We obtained 30 samples, classified according to thedegree of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): 11 samples for CIN 1, 9 samples for CIN 2, and 10 samples forCIN 3. HPV PCR, p16INK4a immunocytochemistry, and histopathological examination were performed on allsamples. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0. Results: In predicting CIN 2-3, we found p16INK4ato have similar specificity and positive predictive value as HPV PCR (95%, 97.2% vs 96.7%), but better sensitivity(87.5% vs 72.5%) and negative predictive value (82.1% vs 67.6%). The most prevalent types of high-risk HPVin our study were HPV 33, 35, 58, 52, and 16. Conclusions: p16INK4a has better diagnostic values than HPVPCR and may be incorporated in the triage of ASCUS and LSIL to replace HPV PCR. Genotype distribution ofHPV differs in each region, providing a challenge to develop HPV vaccines based on the epidemiology of HPVin that particular region.     

阴道镜结果正常或低度病变妇女发生宫颈癌前病变的前瞻性风险分层研究

  目的  探讨细胞学、高危型人乳头瘤病毒（high risk human papillomavirus,hrHPV）分型对于阴道镜结果正常或低级别鳞状上皮内病变（low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion,LSIL）妇女的风险预测作用。  方法  基于1999年6月在山西省建立的宫颈癌筛查队列,以2005年随访时阴道镜结果为正常或低度病变的596例妇女为研究对象,于2010年和2014年进行随访。分析hrHPV阴性组、hrHPV阳性组、HPV16/18阳性组、细胞学LSIL以下组和细胞学LSIL及以上组发生宫颈上皮内瘤样病变2级及以上（cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse,CIN2+）的瞬时、5年和9年累积风险和相对危险度。  结果  细胞学LSIL以下组发生CIN2+的瞬时、5年和9年累积风险分别为0.2%、2.8%和4.2%,细胞学LSIL及以上组相应的风险分别为14.7%（RR=73.8,95% CI为9.7~561.5）、40.0%（RR=16.0,95% CI为8.2~31.1）和51.4%（RR=15.0,95% CI为8.3~27.0）。hrHPV阴性组发生CIN2+的瞬时风险、5年和9年累积风险较低,分别为0.6%、2.7%和3.8%,hrHPV阳性和HPV16/18阳性组发生CIN2+的风险逐渐升高,其中HPV16/18阳性组的相应风险分别为13.2%（RR=23.4,95% CI为5.1~106.9）、36.9%（RR=15.4,95% CI为6.9~34.3）和42.6%（RR=14.1,95% CI为6.8~29.2）。  结论  阴道镜结果正常或LSIL妇女,若细胞学结果为LSIL及以上或HPV16/18阳性,未来进展为高度宫颈癌前病变的风险较高,细胞学和HPV16/18分型可用于该人群的临床分流管理。      

Specimen self‐collection and HPV DNA screening in a pilot study of 100,242 women

Since cervical cancer remains common in Mexico despite an established cytology screening program, the Ministry of Health recently introduced pilot front‐line HPV testing into the Mexican cervical cancer screening program (CCSP). Here, we present the key field performance metrics of this population‐based study. High‐risk HPV DNA (hrHPV) testing was conducted on self‐collected vaginal specimens from 100,242 women aged 25–75 years residing in Morelos State. All hrHPV positive women and a random sample of 3.2% (n = 2,864) of hrHPV negative participants were referred for colposcopic examination. The main disease endpoint of interest was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). We calculated relative risk, positive predictive value and negative predictive value adjusted for screening test verification bias. The overall prevalence of hrHPV was 10.8% (95%CI 10.6–11.0). Women positive for hrHPV had a relative risk of 15.7 for histologically detectable CIN2+. The adjusted positive predictive value of the hrHPV test was 2.4% (95%CI 2.1–2.7); whereas the adjusted negative predictive value was 99.8% (95%CI 99.8–99.9). These findings suggest that large‐scale vaginal hrHPV testing in a middle‐income country can identify women at greater risk of advanced cervical abnormalities in a programmatically meaningful way but care is warranted to ensure that disease not detectable at colposcopy is kept to a minimum. PASS shows areas that need improvement and sets the stage for wider use of hrHPV screening of self‐collected vaginal specimens in Mexico.     

Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis,cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high‐risk HPV‐positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study)

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in high‐risk HPV (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥CIN3 detection in hrHPV‐positive women participating in a prospective observational multi‐center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV‐positive women aged 18–66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy‐directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV‐positive women, the sensitivities for ≥CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥30 years (n = 287), ≥CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2–96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0–94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8–68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1–54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV‐positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥CIN3.