Cargando…
Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays
AIM: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening is becoming increasingly important, either by supplementing or replacing the traditional cytology-based cervical Pap smear. However, hrHPV screening lacks specificity, because it cannot differentiate between transient virus infection and cl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7661165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33176878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-020-00963-w |
_version_ | 1783609155849814016 |
---|---|
author | Dippmann, Carolin Schmitz, Martina Wunsch, Kristina Schütze, Stefanie Beer, Katrin Greinke, Christiane Ikenberg, Hans Hoyer, Heike Runnebaum, Ingo B. Hansel, Alfred Dürst, Matthias |
author_facet | Dippmann, Carolin Schmitz, Martina Wunsch, Kristina Schütze, Stefanie Beer, Katrin Greinke, Christiane Ikenberg, Hans Hoyer, Heike Runnebaum, Ingo B. Hansel, Alfred Dürst, Matthias |
author_sort | Dippmann, Carolin |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening is becoming increasingly important, either by supplementing or replacing the traditional cytology-based cervical Pap smear. However, hrHPV screening lacks specificity, because it cannot differentiate between transient virus infection and clinically relevant hrHPV-induced disease. Therefore, reliable triage methods are needed for the identification of HPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in need of treatment. Promising tools discussed for the triage of these patients are molecular diagnostic tests based on epigenetic markers. Here, we compare the performance of two commercially available DNA methylation-based diagnostic assays—GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test—in physician-taken cervical scrapes from 195 subjects. FINDINGS: Both GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test detected all cervical carcinoma and carcinoma in situ (CIS). The differences observed in the detection rates between both assays for the different grades of cervical lesions (QIAsure Methylation Test: CIN1 26.7%, CIN2 27.8% and CIN3 74.3%; GynTect®: CIN1 13.3%, CIN2 33.3% and CIN3 60%) were not significant. Concerning the false-positive rates, significant differences were evident. For the healthy (NILM) hrHPV-positive group, the false-positive rates were 5.7% for GynTect® and 26.4% for QIAsure Methylation Test (p = 0.003) and for the NILM hrHPV-negative group 2.2% vs. 23.9% (p = 0.006), respectively. When considering hrHPV-positive samples only for comparison (n = 149), GynTect® delivered significantly higher specificity compared to the QIAsure Methylation Test for CIN2 + (87.6% vs. 67.4% (p < 0.001)) and CIN3 + (84.1% vs. 68.2% (p = 0.002)). Overall our findings suggest that DNA methylation-based tests are suitable for the triage of hrHPV-positive women. With the goal to provide a triage test that complements the limited specificity of HPV testing in HPV-based screening, GynTect® may be preferable, due to its higher specificity for CIN2+ or CIN3+ . |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7661165 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76611652020-11-13 Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays Dippmann, Carolin Schmitz, Martina Wunsch, Kristina Schütze, Stefanie Beer, Katrin Greinke, Christiane Ikenberg, Hans Hoyer, Heike Runnebaum, Ingo B. Hansel, Alfred Dürst, Matthias Clin Epigenetics Letter to the Editor AIM: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-based screening is becoming increasingly important, either by supplementing or replacing the traditional cytology-based cervical Pap smear. However, hrHPV screening lacks specificity, because it cannot differentiate between transient virus infection and clinically relevant hrHPV-induced disease. Therefore, reliable triage methods are needed for the identification of HPV-positive women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in need of treatment. Promising tools discussed for the triage of these patients are molecular diagnostic tests based on epigenetic markers. Here, we compare the performance of two commercially available DNA methylation-based diagnostic assays—GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test—in physician-taken cervical scrapes from 195 subjects. FINDINGS: Both GynTect® and the QIAsure Methylation Test detected all cervical carcinoma and carcinoma in situ (CIS). The differences observed in the detection rates between both assays for the different grades of cervical lesions (QIAsure Methylation Test: CIN1 26.7%, CIN2 27.8% and CIN3 74.3%; GynTect®: CIN1 13.3%, CIN2 33.3% and CIN3 60%) were not significant. Concerning the false-positive rates, significant differences were evident. For the healthy (NILM) hrHPV-positive group, the false-positive rates were 5.7% for GynTect® and 26.4% for QIAsure Methylation Test (p = 0.003) and for the NILM hrHPV-negative group 2.2% vs. 23.9% (p = 0.006), respectively. When considering hrHPV-positive samples only for comparison (n = 149), GynTect® delivered significantly higher specificity compared to the QIAsure Methylation Test for CIN2 + (87.6% vs. 67.4% (p < 0.001)) and CIN3 + (84.1% vs. 68.2% (p = 0.002)). Overall our findings suggest that DNA methylation-based tests are suitable for the triage of hrHPV-positive women. With the goal to provide a triage test that complements the limited specificity of HPV testing in HPV-based screening, GynTect® may be preferable, due to its higher specificity for CIN2+ or CIN3+ . BioMed Central 2020-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7661165/ /pubmed/33176878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-020-00963-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Letter to the Editor Dippmann, Carolin Schmitz, Martina Wunsch, Kristina Schütze, Stefanie Beer, Katrin Greinke, Christiane Ikenberg, Hans Hoyer, Heike Runnebaum, Ingo B. Hansel, Alfred Dürst, Matthias Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title | Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title_full | Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title_fullStr | Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title_full_unstemmed | Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title_short | Triage of hrHPV-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific PCR assays |
title_sort | triage of hrhpv-positive women: comparison of two commercial methylation-specific pcr assays |
topic | Letter to the Editor |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7661165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33176878 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-020-00963-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dippmanncarolin triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT schmitzmartina triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT wunschkristina triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT schutzestefanie triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT beerkatrin triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT greinkechristiane triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT ikenberghans triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT hoyerheike triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT runnebaumingob triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT hanselalfred triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays AT durstmatthias triageofhrhpvpositivewomencomparisonoftwocommercialmethylationspecificpcrassays |