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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |