Analysis reveals that ZNF671 methylation is linked to disease progression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, suggesting enhanced monitoring in positive cases.
Background/Objectives: Most cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress over time. Diagnostic screenings are limited and cannot identify the disease trend, which leads to the risk of overtreatment. Reliable methods are needed to preselect patients who will probably progress. The diagnostic GynTect® assay offers sensitive and specific CIN identification from cervical scrapes, measuring the methylation of six marker genes. We studied the main marker (ZNF671) methylation on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) material to determine if the kit provides prognostic information too. Methods: We tested 289 FFPE samples from 139 patients with varying CIN grades and disease trends, including regressive, persistent, progressive, and recurrent disease. Additionally, we correlated age and human papillomavirus (HPV) status with the results. Results: Although there are differences between FFPE material and cervical scrapes, we achieved a similar increase in ZNF671 methylation with increasing neoplasia grade (dysplasia-free: 0%, CIN 1: 8.20%, CIN 2: 26.73%, CIN 3: 32.43%, carcinoma: 100%). In addition, ZNF671 is more likely to detect recurring (27.12% of positives) and progressive (59.32% of positives) neoplasia. Patients with regressive (1.69% of positives) or persistent (11.86% of positives) trends less frequently show ZNF671 methylation. Interestingly, patients with HPV 16 infection (52.54% of positives) and >30 years (89.83% of positives) are more likely to appear ZNF671 methylation-positive. However, patients < 30 years with persistent neoplasia (42.86% of positives) also show methylation more frequently. Conclusions: The methylation of ZNF671 is measurable in cervical FFPE material and has prognostic value. Since ZNF671-methylated samples are most likely to be progressing, we recommend the closer monitoring of patients with GynTect®-positive test results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dübbel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: