Cargando…

Methylation in Predicting Progression of Untreated High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

BACKGROUND: There is no prognostic test to ascertain whether cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress or progress. The majority of CINs regress in young women, and treatments increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We investigated the ability of a DNA methylation panel (the S5 cla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Louvanto, Karolina, Aro, Karoliina, Nedjai, Belinda, Bützow, Ralf, Jakobsson, Maija, Kalliala, Ilkka, Dillner, Joakim, Nieminen, Pekka, Lorincz, Attila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31344234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz677
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: There is no prognostic test to ascertain whether cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress or progress. The majority of CINs regress in young women, and treatments increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We investigated the ability of a DNA methylation panel (the S5 classifier) to discriminate between outcomes among young women with untreated CIN grade 2 (CIN2). METHODS: Baseline pyrosequencing methylation and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping assays were performed on cervical cells from 149 women with CIN2 in a 2-year cohort study of active surveillance. RESULTS: Twenty-five lesions progressed to CIN grade 3 or worse, 88 regressed to less than CIN grade 1, and 36 persisted as CIN1/2. When cytology, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping, and the S5 classifier were compared to outcomes, the S5 classifier was the strongest biomarker associated with regression vs progression. The S5 classifier alone or in combination with HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping also showed significantly increased sensitivity vs cytology when comparing regression vs persistence/progression. With both the S5 classifier and cytology set at a specificity of 38.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4–49.6), the sensitivity of the S5 classifier was significantly higher (83.6%; 95% CI, 71.9–91.8) than of cytology (62.3%; 95% CI, 49.0–74.4; P = 0.005). The highest area under the curve was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.621–0.849) in comparing regression vs progression with a combination of the S5 classifier and cytology, whereas HPV genotyping did not provide additional information. CONCLUSIONS: The S5 classifier shows high potential as a prognostic biomarker to identify progressive CIN2.