CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes increase proportional to degree and duration of underlying cervical disease

Combined detection of cell adhesion molecule 1 (CADM1) and T‐lymphocyte maturation‐associated protein (MAL) promoter methylation in cervical scrapes is a promising triage strategy for high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, CADM1 and MAL DNA methylation levels were analysed in cervical scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with no underlying high‐grade disease, high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels in scrapes were first related to CIN‐grade of the corresponding biopsy and second to CIN‐grade stratified by the presence of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ cytology as present in the accompanying scrape preceding the cervical biopsy. The scrapes included 167 women with ≤CIN1, 54 with CIN2/3 and 44 with carcinoma. In a separate series of hrHPV‐positive scrapes of women with CIN2/3 (n = 48), methylation levels were related to duration of preceding hrHPV infection (PHI; <5 and ≥5 years). Methylation levels were determined by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR and normal cytology scrapes of hrHPV‐positive women with histologically ≤CIN1 served as reference. CADM1 and MAL methylation levels increased proportional to severity of the underlying lesion, showing an increase of 5.3‐ and 6.2‐fold in CIN2/3, respectively, and 143.5‐ and 454.9‐fold in carcinomas, respectively, compared to the reference. Methylation levels were also elevated in CIN2/3 with a longer duration of PHI (i.e. 11.5‐ and 13.6‐fold, respectively). Moreover, per histological category, methylation levels were higher in accompanying scrapes with abnormal cytology than in scrapes with normal cytology. Concluding, CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV‐positive cervical scrapes are related to the degree and duration of underlying cervical disease and markedly increased in cervical cancer.     

CADM1 and MAL methylation status in cervical scrapes is representative of the most severe underlying lesion in women with multiple cervical biopsies

Recent studies have shown that CADM1/MAL methylation levels in cervical scrapes increase with severity and duration of the underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesion. Multiple lesions of different histological grades and duration are frequently present on the cervix. To gain more insight into the possible epigenetic heterogeneity and its consequences for the methylation status in cervical scrapes, we performed an exploratory study of CADM1/MAL methylation in different grades of CIN lesions present in women with multiple cervical biopsies. CADM1‐M18 and MAL‐M1 methylation was assessed using a standardised, multiplex, quantitative methylation specific PCR on 178 biopsies with various grades of CIN in 65 women, and in their corresponding cervical scrapes. CADM1/MAL methylation positivity increased with disease severity, from 5.5% in normal biopsies to 63.3% and 100% in biopsies with CIN3 and cervical cancer, respectively. In the majority (8/9) of women where besides a CIN2/3 lesion a biopsy from normal cervical tissue was present, the CIN2/3 biopsy was CADM1/MAL methylation positive and the normal biopsy was CADM1/MAL methylation negative. A good concordance (78%) was found between CADM1/MAL methylation results on the scrapes and the biopsy with the worst diagnosis, particularly between samples of women with CIN3 and cervical cancer (92% and 100% concordance, respectively). Thus, in women with multiple cervical biopsies, CADM1/MAL methylation increases with severity of the lesion and is lesion‐specific. CADM1/MAL methylation status in cervical scrapes appears to be representative of the worst underlying lesion, particularly for CIN3 and cervical cancer.     

Methylation testing for the detection of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Women treated for CIN2/3 remain at increased risk of recurrent CIN and cervical cancer, and therefore posttreatment surveillance is recommended. This post hoc analysis evaluates the potential of methylation markers ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 for posttreatment detection of recurrent CIN2/3. Cervical scrapes taken at 6 and 12 months posttreatment of 364 women treated for CIN2/3 were tested for methylation of ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 using quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR. Performance of the methylation tests were calculated and compared with the performance of HPV and/or cytology. Methylation levels of recurrent CIN were compared between women with a persistent HPV infection, and women with an incident HPV infection or without HPV infection. Recurrent CIN2/3 was detected in 42 women (11.5%), including 28 women with CIN2 and 14 with CIN3. ASCL1/LHX8 tested positive in 13/14 (92.9%) of recurrent CIN3 and 13/27 (48.1%) of recurrent CIN2. FAM19A4/miR124-2 tested positive in 14/14 (100%) of recurrent CIN3 and 10/27 (37.0%) of recurrent CIN2. Combined HPV and/or methylation testing showed similar positivity rates as HPV and/or cytology. The CIN2/3 risk at 12 months posttreatment was 30.8% after a positive ASCL1/LHX8 result at 6 months posttreatment. Methylation levels of CIN2/3 in women with a persistent HPV infection were significantly higher compared with women with an incident or no HPV infection. In conclusion, posttreatment monitoring by methylation analysis of ASCL1/LHX8 and FAM19A4/miR124-2 showed a good performance for the detection of recurrent CIN. DNA methylation testing can help to identify women with recurrent CIN that require re-treatment.     

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.     

Cervical cancer risk in HPV‐positive women after a negative FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation test: A post hoc analysis in the POBASCAM trial with 14 year follow‐up

DNA methylation analysis of cervical scrapes using FAM19A4 and mir124‐2 genes has shown a good clinical performance in detecting cervical cancer and advanced CIN lesions in need of treatment in HPV‐positive women. To date, longitudinal data on the cancer risk of methylation test‐negative women are lacking. In our study, we assessed the longitudinal outcome of FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation analysis in an HPV‐positive screening cohort with 14 years of follow‐up. Archived HPV‐positive cervical scrapes of 1,040 women (age 29–61 years), who were enrolled in the POBASCAM screening trial (ISRCTN20781131) were tested for FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation. By linkage with the nationwide network and registry of histo‐ and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), 35 cervical cancers were identified during 14 years of follow‐up comprising three screens (baseline, and after 5 and 10 years). The baseline scrape of 36.1% (n = 375) women tested positive for FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation, including 24 women with cervical cancer in follow‐up, and 30.6% (n = 318) had abnormal cytology (threshold borderline dyskaryosis or ASCUS), including 14 women with cervical cancer in follow‐up. Within screening round capability of FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation to detect cervical cancer was 100% (11/11, 95% CI: 71.5–100). Kaplan–Meier estimate of 14‐year cumulative cervical cancer incidence was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.66–3.0) among baseline methylation‐negative and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.4–3.6) among baseline cytology‐negative women (risk difference: 0.71% [95% CI: 0.16–1.4]). In conclusion, a negative FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation test provides a low cervical cancer risk in HPV‐positive women of 30 years and older. FAM19A4/mir124‐2 methylation testing merits consideration as an objective triage test in HPV‐based cervical screening programs.     

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.     

Effectiveness of novel,lower cost molecular human papillomavirus‐based tests for cervical cancer screening in rural china

This study examined the efficacy of the OncoE6? Cervical Test, careHPV? and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in identifying women at risk for cervical cancer and their capability to detect incident cervical precancer and cancer at 1‐year follow‐up. In a population of 7,543 women living in rural China, women provided a self‐collected and two clinician‐collected specimens and underwent VIA. All screen positive women for any of the tests, a ～10% random sample of test‐negative women that underwent colposcopy at baseline, and an additional ～10% random sample of test‐negative women who did not undergo colposcopy at baseline (n = 3,290) were recruited. 2,904 women were rescreened 1 year later using the same tests, colposcopic referral criteria, and procedures. Sensitivities of baseline tests to detect 1‐year cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) were 96.5% and 81.6% for careHPV? on clinician‐collected and self‐collected specimens, respectively, and 54.4% for OncoE6? test. The OncoE6? test was very specific (99.1%) and had the greatest positive predictive value (PPV; 47.7%) for CIN3+. Baseline and 1‐year follow‐up cervical specimens testing HPV DNA positive was sensitive (88.0%) but poorly predictive (5.5–6.0%) of incident CIN2+, whereas testing repeat HPV16, 18 and 45 E6 positive identified only 24.0% of incident CIN2+ but had a predictive value of 33.3%. This study highlights the different utility of HPV DNA and E6 tests, the former as a screening and the latter as a diagnostic test, for detection of cervical precancer and cancer.     

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.     

Discovery and validation of candidate host DNA methylation markers for detection of cervical precancer and cancer

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been recently introduced as an alternative to cytology for cervical cancer screening. However, since most HPV infections clear without causing clinically relevant lesions, additional triage tests are required to identify women who are at high risk of developing cancer. We performed DNA methylation profiling on formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tissue specimens from women with benign HPV16 infection and histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, and cancer using a bead‐based microarray covering 1,500 CpG sites in over 800 genes. Methylation levels in individual CpG sites were compared using a t‐test, and results were summarized by computing p‐values. A total of 12 candidate genes (ADCYAP1, ASCL1, ATP10, CADM1, DCC, DBC1, HS3ST2, MOS, MYOD1, SOX1, SOX17 and TMEFF2) identified by DNA methylation profiling, plus an additional three genes identified from the literature (EPB41L3, MAL and miR‐124) were chosen for validation in an independent set of 167 liquid‐based cytology specimens using pyrosequencing and targeted, next‐generation bisulfite sequencing. Of the 15 candidate gene markers, 10 had an area under the curve (AUC) of ≥ 0.75 for discrimination of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+) from <HSIL cytology using at least one assay. Overall, SOX1, DCC, and EPB41L3 showed the best discrimination with AUC values of ≥0.80, irrespective of methylation detection assay. In addition to verifying candidate markers from the literature (e.g., SOX1 and EPB41L3), we identified novel markers that may be considered for detection of cervical precancer and cancer and warrant further validation in prospective studies.     

Lower cost strategies for triage of human papillomavirus DNA‐positive women

Using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening in lower‐resource settings (LRS) will result in a significant number of screen‐positive women. This analysis compares different triage strategies for detecting cervical precancer and cancer among HPV‐positive women in LRS. This was a population‐based study of women aged 25–65 years living in China (n = 7,541). Each woman provided a self‐collected and two clinician‐collected specimens. The self‐collected and one clinician‐collected specimen were tested by two HPV DNA tests—careHPV? and Hybrid Capture 2; the other clinician‐collected specimen was tested for HPV16/18/45 E6 protein. CareHPV?‐positive specimens were tested for HPV16/18/45 DNA. HPV DNA‐positive women underwent visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and then colposcopic evaluation with biopsies. The performance for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) among HPV DNA‐positive women was assessed for different triage strategies: HPV16/18/45 E6 or DNA detection, VIA, colposcopic impression, or higher signal strength (≥10 relative light units/positive control [rlu/pc]). The percent triage positive ranges were 14.8–17.4% for VIA, 17.8–20.9% for an abnormal colposcopic impression; 7.9–10.5% for HPV16/18/45 E6; 23.4–28.4% for HPV16/18/45 DNA; and 48.0–62.6% for higher signal strength (≥10 rlu/pc), depending on the HPV test/specimen combination. The positivity for all triage tests increased with severity of diagnosis. HPV16/18/45 DNA detection was approximately 70% sensitive and had positive predictive values (PPV) of approximately 25% for CIN3+. HPV16/18/45 E6 detection was approximately 50% sensitive with a PPV of nearly 50% for CIN3+. Different triage strategies for HPV DNA‐positive women provide important tradeoffs in colposcopy or treatment referral percentages and sensitivity for prevalent CIN3+.     

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.     

High‐risk HPV testing on self‐sampled versus clinician‐collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.     

High‐risk human papillomavirus DNA load in a population‐based cervical screening cohort in relation to the detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer

In a population‐based cervical screening cohort, we determined the value of type‐specific viral load assessment for the detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN2). Viral load was determined by type‐specific real‐time PCR in women with single HPV16,‐18,‐31 and ‐33 infections, as determined by GP5+/6+‐PCR. Study endpoints were the detection of cumulative ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3 within 18 months of follow‐up. High viral loads of HPV16,‐31, and ‐33 were predictive for ≥CIN2 (relative risk of 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3–1.9), 1.7 (95% CI: 1.1–2.7) and 1.9 (95% CI: 1.1–3.1) per 10‐fold change in viral load, respectively). For HPV18, the relative risk was of similar magnitude (1.5, 95% CI: 0.7–3.1), though not significant (p = 0.3). Subsequently, we determined the sensitivities of viral load for ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 in HPV DNA‐positive women using viral load thresholds previously defined in a cross‐sectional study. These thresholds were based on the 25th, 33rd and 50th percentiles of type‐specific HPV16,‐18,‐31 or ‐33 viral load values found in women with normal cytology. For all types, combined sensitivities for ≥CIN2 were 93.5%, 88.8% and 77.7% for the 25th, 33rd and 50th percentile thresholds, respectively. Response‐operator‐characteristics (ROC) curve analysis showed that viral load testing on HPV DNA‐positive women in addition to or instead of cytology may result in an increased sensitivity for ≥CIN2, but at the cost of a marked decrease in specificity in relation to cytology. Similar results were obtained when using ≥CIN3 as endpoint. In conclusion, in a cervical screening setting viral load assessment of HPV16, 18, 31 and 33 has no additive value to stratify high‐risk HPV GP5+/6+‐PCR‐positive women for risk of ≥CIN2 or ≥CIN3. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation in invasive cervical cancer: A retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study

Widespread adoption of primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening has encouraged the search for a triage test which retains high sensitivity for the detection of cervical cancer and precancer, but increases specificity to avoid overtreatment. Methylation analysis of FAM19A4 and miR124-2 genes has shown promise for the triage of high-risk (hr) HPV-positive women. In our study, we assessed the consistency of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in the detection of cervical cancer in a series of 519 invasive cervical carcinomas (n = 314 cervical scrapes, n = 205 tissue specimens) from over 25 countries, using a quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP)-based assay (QIAsure Methylation Test®). Positivity rates stratified per histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region were calculated. In total, 510 of the 519 cervical carcinomas (98.3%; 95% CI: 96.7–99.2) tested FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-positive. Test positivity was consistent across the different subgroups based on cervical cancer histotype, FIGO stage, hrHPV status, hrHPV genotype, sample type and geographical region. In conclusion, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis detects nearly all cervical carcinomas, including rare histotypes and hrHPV-negative carcinomas. These results indicate that a negative FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation assay result is likely to rule out the presence of cervical cancer.     

Prevalence of type‐specific human papillomavirus in endocervical,upper and lower vaginal,perineal and vaginal self‐collected specimens: Implications for vaginal self‐collection

To determine why a vaginal self‐collection tested for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) by Hybrid Capture 2® (hc2) has lower sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Grade 2 or worse (≥CIN 2), we collected 5 specimens (endocervix, upper and lower vagina, perineum, vaginal self‐collection) from 2,625 women. Endocervical and self‐collected specimens had HR‐HPV tests by hc2. All 5 anogenital specimens were tested for 37 HPV genotypes [Linear Array®, (LA)] from 397 women hc2 positive in endocervical or self‐collected specimens and for a randomly selected 71 of 2,228 women hc2 negative on both specimens. Three hundred nintey‐five women who screened positive by hc2 or had abnormal cytology underwent colposcopic evaluation. Of 47 women with ≥CIN 2, hc2 was positive in 97.9% (46/47) of endocervical and 80.9% (38/47), p = 0.008 of self‐collected specimens. Seven of 9 women with ≥CIN 2 and negative self‐collected hc2 tests were positive for HR‐HPV by LA. Of 2,578 women without ≥CIN 2, hc2 was positive in 9.8% (253/2,578) of endocervical and 11.4% (294/2,578), p = 0.001 of self‐collected specimens. Of the 41 more women without ≥CIN 2 that tested hc2 positive on the self‐collected but negative on endocervical specimen, LA tested positive for HR‐HPV in 24, negative for HPV in 11 and negative for HR‐HPV but positive for low‐risk HPV in 6. Lower sensitivity of self‐collected specimens is secondary to lower levels of vaginal HR‐HPV. The principal cause of the lower specificity of self‐collected specimens is HR‐HPV present solely in the vagina, which is not associated with ≥CIN 2.     

Risk-stratification of HPV-positive women with low-grade cytology by FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and HPV genotyping

Background The introduction of primary HPV screening has doubled the number of colposcopy referrals because of the direct referral of HPV-positive women with a borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD) cytology (ASC-US/LSIL) triage test. Further risk-stratification is warranted to improve the efficiency of HPV-based screening.Methods This study evaluated the discriminative power of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD (n = 294) in two Dutch screening trials. Absolute CIN3+ risks and colposcopy referrals within one screening round were calculated.Results Methylation analysis discriminated well, yielding a CIN3+ risk of 33.1% after a positive result and a CIN3+ risk of 9.8% after a negative result. HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping resulted in a 27.6% and 24.6% CIN3+ risk after a positive result, and a 13.2% and 9.1% CIN3+ risk after a negative result. Colposcopy referral percentages were 41.2%, 43.2%, and 66.3% for FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping, respectively. The CIN3+ risk after a negative result could be lowered to 2.8% by combining methylation and extended genotyping, at the expense of a higher referral percentage of 75.5%.Conclusion The use of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation and/or HPV genotyping in HPV-positive women with BMD can lead to a substantial reduction in the number of direct colposcopy referrals.Subject terms: DNA methylation, Diagnostic markers, Cervical cancer, Molecular medicine     

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.     

The role of human papillomavirus type 16/18 genotyping in predicting high‐grade cervical/vaginal intraepithelial neoplasm in women with mildly abnormal Papanicolaou results

BACKGROUND:

The authors compared the predictive value of type 16 and/or 18 human papillomavirus (HPV) versus non‐16/18 HPV types for high‐grade (grade ≥2) cervical neoplasm/vaginal intraepithelial neoplasm and carcinoma (CIN/VAIN2+) in women with mildly abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) results (ie, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS] or low‐grade squamous epithelial lesion [LSIL]).

METHODS:

The authors retrospectively selected Pap specimens with HPV testing results obtained from 243 women (155 with ASCUS and 88 with LSIL Pap results) in their Department of Pathology. HPV genotyping was performed using the EasyChip HPV blot assay. The Pap specimens with HPV16/18 and non‐16/18 HPV types were compared with follow‐up biopsy results. Follow‐up duration ranged from 1 month to 58 months (mean, 26 months).

RESULTS:

In total, 58 of 155 specimens (37%) that had ASCUS and 29 of 88 specimens (33%) that had LSIL were positive for HPV16/18. CIN/VAIN2+ biopsies were identified in 43 of 155 women (28%) with ASCUS and in 28 of 88 women (32%) with LSIL. Women with ASCUS and HPV16/18 had a significantly higher rate (43%) of CIN/VAIN2+ than women with ASCUS and non‐16/18 HPV types (19%; P = .003; odds ratio, 3.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.48‐6.53). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of CIN/VAIN2+ between women who had LSIL and HPV16/18 (45%) and those who had LSIL and non‐16/18 HPV types (29%; P = .16; odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.77‐4.97).

CONCLUSIONS:

HPV genotyping for HPV16/18 improved risk assessment for women with ASCUS Pap results and may be used to predict the risk of CIN/VAIN2+ to better guide follow‐up management. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

DNA methylation of imprinted gene control regions in the regression of low‐grade cervical lesions

The role of host epigenetic mechanisms in the natural history of low‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN1) is not well characterized. We explored differential methylation of imprinted gene regulatory regions as predictors of the risk of CIN1 regression. A total of 164 patients with CIN1 were recruited from 10 Duke University clinics for the CIN Cohort Study. Participants had colposcopies at enrollment and up to five follow‐up visits over 3 years. DNA was extracted from exfoliated cervical cells for methylation quantitation at CpG (cytosine‐phosphate‐guanine) sites and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox regression to quantify the effect of methylation on CIN1 regression over two consecutive visits, compared to non‐regression (persistent CIN1; progression to CIN2+; or CIN1 regression at a single time‐point), adjusting for age, race, high‐risk HPV (hrHPV), parity, oral contraceptive and smoking status. Median participant age was 26.6 years (range: 21.0–64.4 years), 39% were African‐American, and 11% were current smokers. Most participants were hrHPV‐positive at enrollment (80.5%). Over one‐third of cases regressed (n = 53, 35.1%). Median time‐to‐regression was 12.6 months (range: 4.5–24.0 months). Probability of CIN1 regression was negatively correlated with methylation at IGF2AS CpG 5 (HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.23–0.77) and PEG10 DMR (HR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.65–0.98). Altered methylation of imprinted IGF2AS and PEG10 DMRs may play a role in the natural history of CIN1. If confirmed in larger studies, further research on imprinted gene DMR methylation is warranted to determine its efficacy as a biomarker for cervical cancer screening.     

Reduction in HPV16/18 prevalence among young women with high‐grade cervical lesions following the Japanese HPV vaccination program

The Japanese government began a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program for girls aged 12‐16 years in 2010 but withdrew its recommendation in 2013 because of potential adverse effects, leading to drastically reduced vaccination uptake. To evaluate population‐level effects of HPV vaccination, women younger than 40 years of age newly diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1‐3 (CIN1‐3), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), or invasive cervical cancer (ICC) have been registered at 21 participating institutes each year since 2012. A total of 7709 women were registered during 2012‐2017, of which 5045 were HPV genotyped. Declining trends in prevalence of vaccine types HPV16 and HPV18 during a 6‐year period were observed in CIN1 (50.0% to 0.0%, P_trend < .0001) and CIN2‐3/AIS (83.3% to 45.0%, P_trend = .07) only among women younger than 25 years of age. Overall, HPV vaccination reduced the proportion of HPV16/18‐attributable CIN2‐3/AIS from 47.7% to 33.0% (P = .003): from 43.5% to 12.5% as routine vaccination (P = .08) and from 47.8% to 36.7% as catch‐up vaccination (P = .04). The HPV16/18 prevalence in CIN2‐3/AIS cases was significantly reduced among female individuals who received their first vaccination at age 20 years or younger (P = .02). We could not evaluate vaccination effects on ICC owing to low incidence of ICC among women aged less than 25 years. We found HPV vaccination to be effective in protecting against HPV16/18‐positive CIN/AIS in Japan; however, our data did not support catch‐up vaccination for women older than 20 years. Older adolescents who skipped routine vaccination due to the government’s suspension of its vaccine recommendation could benefit from receiving catch‐up vaccination before age 20 years.