Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluates PAX1 methylation in HR-HPV-positive women, suggesting effective triage strategy.
To evaluate PAX1 hypermethylation (PAX1m) as a triage strategy test for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-positive women versus liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV16/18 genotyping. This prospective, diagnostic accuracy study enrolled 1,461 h-HPV-positive women. All underwent colposcopy and biopsy. Triage strategies (PAX1m, LBC [ASC-US+], HPV16/18, combinations) were assessed against histology. PAX1m test exhibited comparable sensitivity (90.1% vs. 94.4%, P = 0.366) but significantly higher specificity (77.2% vs. 18.6%, P < 0.001) than LBC for detecting CIN3+. Combined strategies showed performance: the HPV16/18 + PAX1m test achieved the highest specificity at 64.1% and 2.16 times higher positive predictive value (PPV) than HPV16/18 or LBC. PAX1m and HPV16/18 + PAX1m test achieved the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) for CIN3 + lesions with 0.837 and 0.792, respectively. The PAX1m test alone had the highest positive likelihood ratio (LR + = 3.95) and PPV (16.8%). Colposcopy referral rates were reduced to 26.1% (95% CI: 23.9%–28.4%) with PAX1m test and 38.7% (95%CI: 36.3%–41.3%) with HPV16/18 + PAX1m test compared to LBC at 82.1% (95%CI: 80.0%–83.9%). No cervical cancer cases were missed by PAX1m test. The PAX1m test demonstrated favorable specificity compared to cytology in this cohort, though its CIN3 + sensitivity was slightly lower. This approach may offer an adjunctive strategy for resource-limited settings, though prospective validation in screening populations is needed. Not available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: