Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pilot study demonstrates that DNA methylation correlates with high-grade cervical lesions in biopsy tissue, indicating potential for improved clinical stratification.
Persistent high-risk HPV (human papillomavirus) infection is a key factor in cervical cancer, but additional molecular alterations drive lesion progression. DNA methylation has been proposed as a biomarker of transforming HPV infections and lesion progression. We evaluated the feasibility of DNA methylation testing in histologically verified FFPE (formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded ) cervical tissue and explored associations between methylation status, HPV genotype, lesion grade, and immunohistochemical markers. Fifty-three patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN1–3) were included. FFPE punch biopsy or conization samples were analyzed using the Allplex™ HPV28 assay and GynTect ® DNA methylation testing. Immunohistochemistry for p16 and Ki-67 was performed. Associations between methylation, HPV genotype, lesion grade and Ki-67 expression were analyzed using Fisher’s exact or Fisher–Freeman–Halton test. HPV DNA was detected in 49/53 samples (92.5%), with HPV16 in 26/49 (53.1%). Methylation analysis was successful in 39/53 samples (73.6%), and positive in 16/39 (41%), exclusively in HSIL. Methylation was associated with HPV16 positivity ( p = 0.012) and higher Ki-67 expression ( p = 0.008). p16 expression was largely concordant with HPV status. All LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) samples with valid methylation results were methylation-negative. This exploratory study demonstrates the technical feasibility of DNA methylation testing and HPV genotyping in histologically verified FFPE cervical tissue. In this cohort, methylation positivity was associated with HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), HPV16 infection, and increased Ki-67 expression. Further studies with control tissues and validated FFPE-specific protocols are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rysava et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: