PURPOSE: Screening women for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cervical cancer (CIN3(+)) by high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has as side-effect the detection of hrHPV-positive women without clinically relevant lesions. Here, we developed an objective assay assessing the methylation status of the promoter regions of CADM1 and MAL to triage hrHPV-positive women for CIN3(+). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a training set (51 women with CIN3(+) and 224 without CIN2(+)), panels consisting of one to four quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) assays (CADM1-m12,CADM1-m18,MAL-m1,MAL-m2) were analyzed. Cross-validated receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed and the panel with highest partial cross-validated area under the curve (AUC) was used for validation in an independent set of 236 consecutive hrHPV-positive women from a screening cohort. In the validation set, the ROC curve of the panel was compared with CIN3(+) sensitivity and specificity of cytology and of cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping. RESULTS: In the training set, CADM1-m18 combined with MAL-m1 was the best panel (cross-validated partial AUC = 0.719). In the validation set, this panel revealed CIN3(+) sensitivities ranging from 100% (95% CI: 92.4-100) to 60.5% (95% CI: 47.1-74.6), with corresponding specificities ranging from 22.7% (95% CI: 20.2-25.2) to 83.3% (95% CI: 78.4-87.4). For cytology these were 65.8% (95% CI: 52.3-79.0) and 78.8% (95% CI: 73.7-83.1) and for cytology/HPV16/18, these were 84.2% (95% CI: 72.0-92.7) and 54.0% (95% CI: 49.2-58.7), respectively. The point estimates of both cytology and cytology/HPV16/18 were equal to the values of the ROC curve of CADM1-m18/MAL-m1. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an objective methylation marker panel that was equally discriminatory for CIN3(+) as cytology or cytology with HPV16/18 genotyping in hrHPV-positive women. This opens the possibility for complete cervical screening by objective, nonmorphological molecular methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hesselink et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: