Cargando…

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 ass...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lorincz, Attila T., Brentnall, Adam R., Scibior‐Bentkowska, Dorota, Reuter, Caroline, Banwait, Rawinder, Cadman, Louise, Austin, Janet, Cuzick, Jack, Vasiljević, Natasa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26790008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30008
_version_ 1782427229215522816
author Lorincz, Attila T.
Brentnall, Adam R.
Scibior‐Bentkowska, Dorota
Reuter, Caroline
Banwait, Rawinder
Cadman, Louise
Austin, Janet
Cuzick, Jack
Vasiljević, Natasa
author_facet Lorincz, Attila T.
Brentnall, Adam R.
Scibior‐Bentkowska, Dorota
Reuter, Caroline
Banwait, Rawinder
Cadman, Louise
Austin, Janet
Cuzick, Jack
Vasiljević, Natasa
author_sort Lorincz, Attila T.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4832297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48322972016-04-20 Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample Lorincz, Attila T. Brentnall, Adam R. Scibior‐Bentkowska, Dorota Reuter, Caroline Banwait, Rawinder Cadman, Louise Austin, Janet Cuzick, Jack Vasiljević, Natasa Int J Cancer Tumor Markers and Signatures 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-02-08 2016-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4832297/ /pubmed/26790008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30008 Text en © 2016 The Authors International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Tumor Markers and Signatures
Lorincz, Attila T.
Brentnall, Adam R.
Scibior‐Bentkowska, Dorota
Reuter, Caroline
Banwait, Rawinder
Cadman, Louise
Austin, Janet
Cuzick, Jack
Vasiljević, Natasa
Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title_full Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title_fullStr Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title_full_unstemmed Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title_short Validation of a DNA methylation HPV triage classifier in a screening sample
title_sort validation of a dna methylation hpv triage classifier in a screening sample
topic Tumor Markers and Signatures
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26790008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30008
work_keys_str_mv AT lorinczattilat validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT brentnalladamr validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT scibiorbentkowskadorota validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT reutercaroline validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT banwaitrawinder validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT cadmanlouise validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT austinjanet validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT cuzickjack validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample
AT vasiljevicnatasa validationofadnamethylationhpvtriageclassifierinascreeningsample