Multinomial regression analysis shows independent associations of HR-HPV, TCT, and PAX1/JAM3 methylation with cervical lesions in a high-risk cohort, indicating important biomarkers.
To investigate the risk factors associated with pathological progression of cervical lesions, specifically focusing on high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection, ThinPrep Cytologic Test (TCT), and PAX1/JAM3 gene methylation in a high-risk colposcopy-referred cohort. A total of 409 patients who underwent colposcopy-directed biopsy at the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January, 2023 and April, 2025 due to abnormal TCT results, HR-HPV infection, or positive PAX1/JAM3 gene methylation were analyzed. The sensitivities of different methods were compared, and unordered multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors for high-grade cervical lesions and pathological progression. Univariate analysis demonstrated that age, gravidity, age at first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners, menopausal status, HR-HPV infection, TCT results, and PAX1/JAM3 methylation were significantly associated with pathological grade (all P < 0.05). In the multinomial regression analysis, compared to the inflammation group, both other high-risk HPV (OR = 3.930) and very-high-risk (16/18) HPV infections (OR = 3.725), as well as non-NILM TCT (OR = 2.435), were significantly associated with an increased risk of LSIL. For the progression to HSIL, very-high-risk HPV (OR = 6.801), non-NILM TCT (OR = 2.399), positive PAX1 methylation (OR = 4.145), and positive JAM3 methylation (OR = 8.215) were identified as strong independent risk factors. In a high-risk colposcopy-referred cohort, HR-HPV infection, non-NILM TCT results, and positive PAX1/JAM3 gene methylation are independently associated with the presence of high-grade cervical lesions. These biomarkers have the potential to enhance clinical risk stratification and inform decision-making in cervical cancer screening. However, their clinical utility and cost-effectiveness need to be further evaluated through larger, prospective studies to validate their role in routine clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: