Methylation in Predicting Progression of Untreated High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.
CIN
DNA methylation
HSIL
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 06 2020
10 06 2020
Historique:
received:
28
03
2019
accepted:
23
07
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
7
1
2021
entrez:
26
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no prognostic test to ascertain whether cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress or progress. The majority of CINs regress in young women, and treatments increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We investigated the ability of a DNA methylation panel (the S5 classifier) to discriminate between outcomes among young women with untreated CIN grade 2 (CIN2). Baseline pyrosequencing methylation and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping assays were performed on cervical cells from 149 women with CIN2 in a 2-year cohort study of active surveillance. Twenty-five lesions progressed to CIN grade 3 or worse, 88 regressed to less than CIN grade 1, and 36 persisted as CIN1/2. When cytology, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping, and the S5 classifier were compared to outcomes, the S5 classifier was the strongest biomarker associated with regression vs progression. The S5 classifier alone or in combination with HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping also showed significantly increased sensitivity vs cytology when comparing regression vs persistence/progression. With both the S5 classifier and cytology set at a specificity of 38.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4-49.6), the sensitivity of the S5 classifier was significantly higher (83.6%; 95% CI, 71.9-91.8) than of cytology (62.3%; 95% CI, 49.0-74.4; P = 0.005). The highest area under the curve was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.621-0.849) in comparing regression vs progression with a combination of the S5 classifier and cytology, whereas HPV genotyping did not provide additional information. The S5 classifier shows high potential as a prognostic biomarker to identify progressive CIN2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is no prognostic test to ascertain whether cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress or progress. The majority of CINs regress in young women, and treatments increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. We investigated the ability of a DNA methylation panel (the S5 classifier) to discriminate between outcomes among young women with untreated CIN grade 2 (CIN2).
METHODS
Baseline pyrosequencing methylation and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping assays were performed on cervical cells from 149 women with CIN2 in a 2-year cohort study of active surveillance.
RESULTS
Twenty-five lesions progressed to CIN grade 3 or worse, 88 regressed to less than CIN grade 1, and 36 persisted as CIN1/2. When cytology, HPV16/18 and HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping, and the S5 classifier were compared to outcomes, the S5 classifier was the strongest biomarker associated with regression vs progression. The S5 classifier alone or in combination with HPV16/18/31/33 genotyping also showed significantly increased sensitivity vs cytology when comparing regression vs persistence/progression. With both the S5 classifier and cytology set at a specificity of 38.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4-49.6), the sensitivity of the S5 classifier was significantly higher (83.6%; 95% CI, 71.9-91.8) than of cytology (62.3%; 95% CI, 49.0-74.4; P = 0.005). The highest area under the curve was 0.735 (95% CI, 0.621-0.849) in comparing regression vs progression with a combination of the S5 classifier and cytology, whereas HPV genotyping did not provide additional information.
CONCLUSIONS
The S5 classifier shows high potential as a prognostic biomarker to identify progressive CIN2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31344234
pii: 5538807
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz677
pmc: PMC7286376
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2582-2590Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C569/A10404
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 15;141(4):701-710
pubmed: 28500655
Am J Surg Pathol. 2010 Aug;34(8):1077-87
pubmed: 20661011
BMJ. 2018 Feb 27;360:k499
pubmed: 29487049
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Nov;100(2):229-35
pubmed: 16932852
BMJ. 2008 Sep 18;337:a1284
pubmed: 18801868
Int J Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;132(6):1412-22
pubmed: 22847263
Virology. 2014 Jan 5;448:314-21
pubmed: 24314662
Int J Cancer. 2016 Jun 1;138(11):2745-51
pubmed: 26790008
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007 Oct;26(4):441-6
pubmed: 17885496
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):829-46
pubmed: 23635684
J Clin Virol. 2014 Mar;59(3):161-6
pubmed: 24468012
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Mar;132(3):709-14
pubmed: 24508839
BMJ. 1989 Mar 18;298(6675):707-10
pubmed: 2496816
AIDS. 2018 Sep 24;32(15):2227-2236
pubmed: 30005021
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014 Dec;7(12):1251-7
pubmed: 25281488
N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 12;338(7):423-8
pubmed: 9459645
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 15;136(6):E638-45
pubmed: 25203794
Int J Cancer. 2012 Nov 15;131(10):2349-59
pubmed: 22323075
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Mar;47(3):541-6
pubmed: 19144817
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Sep-Oct;17(5):1099-103
pubmed: 17367324
Int J Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;135(6):1425-32
pubmed: 24535756
JAMA. 2001 Mar 21;285(11):1500-5
pubmed: 11255427
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 02;11:CD012847
pubmed: 29095502
BMJ. 2016 Jul 28;354:i3633
pubmed: 27469988
Lancet. 2006 Feb 11;367(9509):489-98
pubmed: 16473126
Am J Clin Pathol. 2007 Aug;128(2):208-17
pubmed: 17638654
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;113(1):18-25
pubmed: 19104355
Cancer Biomark. 2015;15(5):669-75
pubmed: 26406956
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;116(6):1373-80
pubmed: 21099605