Methylation estimates the risk of precancer in HPV-infected women with discrepant results between cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping.


Journal

Clinical epigenetics
ISSN: 1868-7083
Titre abrégé: Clin Epigenetics
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101516977

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 10 2019
Historique:
received: 10 04 2019
accepted: 12 09 2019
entrez: 14 10 2019
pubmed: 14 10 2019
medline: 28 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Vigilant management of women with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is necessary in cancer screening programs. To this end, we evaluated the performance of S5 (targeting DNA methylation in HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, and human gene EPB41L3) to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) in a sample of hrHPV-infected women referred to colposcopy in the FRIDA Study, a large screening trial in Mexico. A nested case-control sample with women referred to colposcopy either by atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher (ASCUS+) in cytology and/or positive for HPV types 16 or 18 was tested by S5. Seventy-nine cases of CIN2+ were age-matched to 237 controls without a diagnosis of CIN2+ (<CIN2). DNA from exfoliated cervical cells was bisulfite converted and PCR amplified for S5 targets, and methylation was quantified at specific cytosines by pyrosequencing. The S5 classifier separated women with CIN2+ from <CIN2 with a highly significant area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.82), while AUC for CIN3+ was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.89). To optimize sensitivity and specificity for Mexico, an alternative S5 cutoff of 3.7 was implemented to account for overall higher methylation seen in our already triaged women. All three invasive cancers were detected by methylation or HPV16/18 but none by cytology. Sensitivity of S5 for CIN2+ was 62% (95% CI 50.4-72.7%), specificity was 73% (95% CI 66.9-78.5%), and adjusted PPV was 15.1% (95% CI 12.0-18.3%). In contrast, the crude sensitivity of HPV16/18 detection and cytology were 63.3% (95% CI 51.7-73.9%) and 57.0% (95% CI 45.3-68.1%) respectively; specificity was 29.1% (95% CI 23.4-35.3%) and 62.4% (95% CI 55.9-68.6%) respectively, while adjusted PPV was 6.4% (95% CI 4.9-8.1%) and 10.5% (95% CI 8.0-13.1%), respectively. Methylation testing could reduce colposcopy referrals by 30 to 50% with virtually no loss of sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+. S5 testing on hrHPV-positive women significantly increased diagnostic information compared to triage by HPV16/18 plus cytology and appears to have clinical utility as an additional test to substantially lessen burdens on colposcopy. The FRIDA Study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02510027.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Vigilant management of women with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is necessary in cancer screening programs. To this end, we evaluated the performance of S5 (targeting DNA methylation in HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, HPV33, and human gene EPB41L3) to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) in a sample of hrHPV-infected women referred to colposcopy in the FRIDA Study, a large screening trial in Mexico. A nested case-control sample with women referred to colposcopy either by atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher (ASCUS+) in cytology and/or positive for HPV types 16 or 18 was tested by S5. Seventy-nine cases of CIN2+ were age-matched to 237 controls without a diagnosis of CIN2+ (<CIN2). DNA from exfoliated cervical cells was bisulfite converted and PCR amplified for S5 targets, and methylation was quantified at specific cytosines by pyrosequencing.
RESULTS
The S5 classifier separated women with CIN2+ from <CIN2 with a highly significant area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.82), while AUC for CIN3+ was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.89). To optimize sensitivity and specificity for Mexico, an alternative S5 cutoff of 3.7 was implemented to account for overall higher methylation seen in our already triaged women. All three invasive cancers were detected by methylation or HPV16/18 but none by cytology. Sensitivity of S5 for CIN2+ was 62% (95% CI 50.4-72.7%), specificity was 73% (95% CI 66.9-78.5%), and adjusted PPV was 15.1% (95% CI 12.0-18.3%). In contrast, the crude sensitivity of HPV16/18 detection and cytology were 63.3% (95% CI 51.7-73.9%) and 57.0% (95% CI 45.3-68.1%) respectively; specificity was 29.1% (95% CI 23.4-35.3%) and 62.4% (95% CI 55.9-68.6%) respectively, while adjusted PPV was 6.4% (95% CI 4.9-8.1%) and 10.5% (95% CI 8.0-13.1%), respectively. Methylation testing could reduce colposcopy referrals by 30 to 50% with virtually no loss of sensitivity for CIN2+ and CIN3+.
CONCLUSIONS
S5 testing on hrHPV-positive women significantly increased diagnostic information compared to triage by HPV16/18 plus cytology and appears to have clinical utility as an additional test to substantially lessen burdens on colposcopy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The FRIDA Study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02510027.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31606044
doi: 10.1186/s13148-019-0743-9
pii: 10.1186/s13148-019-0743-9
pmc: PMC6790057
doi:

Substances chimiques

DNA, Viral 0
EPB41L3 protein, human 0
Microfilament Proteins 0

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02510027']

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

140

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C569/A10404
Pays : United Kingdom

Investigateurs

Attila Lorincz (A)
Cosette Wheeler (C)
Patti Gravitt (P)
Eduardo Lazcano (E)
Leticia Torres (L)
Leith León (L)
Paula Ramírez (P)
Berenice Rivera (B)
Eduardo L Franco (EL)
Jack Cuzick (J)
Pablo Méndez (P)
Jorge Salmerón (J)
Mauricio Hernández (M)
Anna Barbara Moscicki (AB)
Yvonne Flores (Y)
Enrique Carmona (E)
Kathleen M Schmeler (KM)
David Bishai (D)
Pilar Hernández (P)
Rubi Hernández (R)
Indira Mendiola (I)

Références

N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1579-88
pubmed: 17942871
Salud Publica Mex. 2014 Sep-Oct;56(5):429-501
pubmed: 25604287
J Infect Dis. 2002 Oct 15;186(8):1169-72
pubmed: 12355370
J Clin Virol. 2014 Mar;59(3):161-6
pubmed: 24468012
J Clin Virol. 2013 Sep;58(1):161-7
pubmed: 23895930
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Mar;132(3):709-14
pubmed: 24508839
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2014 Apr;14(3):293-305
pubmed: 24649818
Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 15;141(4):701-710
pubmed: 28500655
Int J Cancer. 2018 Aug 15;143(4):735-745
pubmed: 29341110
Int J Cancer. 2018 Apr 21;:null
pubmed: 29679470
Clin Epigenetics. 2017 Oct 24;9:118
pubmed: 29090037
BMC Cancer. 2018 Dec 3;18(1):1197
pubmed: 30509219
CMAJ. 2001 Apr 3;164(7):1017-25
pubmed: 11314432
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Nov 21;104(22):1738-49
pubmed: 23093560
Vaccine. 2006 Aug 31;24 Suppl 3:S3/78-89
pubmed: 16950021
Lancet. 2007 Sep 8;370(9590):890-907
pubmed: 17826171
Int J Cancer. 2019 May 15;144(10):2587-2595
pubmed: 30412281
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Feb;13(1):95-107
pubmed: 25385310
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Nov;11(11):1048-56
pubmed: 20952254
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 15;136(6):E638-45
pubmed: 25203794
Salud Publica Mex. 2016 Apr;58(2):197-210
pubmed: 27557378
N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 6;348(6):518-27
pubmed: 12571259
Int J Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;132(6):1412-22
pubmed: 22847263
Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79(3):328-37
pubmed: 1310805
EMBO Rep. 2011 Jul 01;12(7):647-56
pubmed: 21660058
Int J Cancer. 2014 Sep 15;135(6):1425-32
pubmed: 24535756
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Jan 15;171(2):155-63
pubmed: 20007673
Prev Med. 2011 Oct;53 Suppl 1:S12-21
pubmed: 21962466
Int J Cancer. 2015 Aug 15;137(4):893-902
pubmed: 25639903
Cancer Causes Control. 2011 Feb;22(2):261-72
pubmed: 21170578
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Sep;9(9):945-51
pubmed: 11008913
Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Oct;21(10):1693-700
pubmed: 20617376
Int J Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;135(1):109-16
pubmed: 24615258
Int J Cancer. 2016 Jun 1;138(11):2745-51
pubmed: 26790008
N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 7;358(6):642-3; author reply 643-4
pubmed: 18265442
J Clin Lab Anal. 2019 May;33(4):e22854
pubmed: 30758084
Biochimie. 2012 Nov;94(11):2314-37
pubmed: 22847185
Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524-32
pubmed: 24192252
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Dec;27(4):399-408
pubmed: 24267547
Int J Cancer. 2008 Jul 1;123(1):161-7
pubmed: 18398837
Int J Cancer. 2016 Jan 15;138(2):463-71
pubmed: 26219541
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(6):501-512
pubmed: 27806357
J Pathol. 1999 Sep;189(1):12-9
pubmed: 10451482
Cancer Biomark. 2015;15(5):669-75
pubmed: 26406956
Int J Cancer. 2013 Aug 1;133(3):637-44
pubmed: 23335178
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 May 1;24(9):2194-2202
pubmed: 29420222

Auteurs

Rubí Hernández-López (R)

Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.
Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, Ciudad de México, México.

Attila T Lorincz (AT)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. a.lorincz@qmul.ac.uk.

Leticia Torres-Ibarra (L)

Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.

Caroline Reuter (C)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska (D)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Rhian Warman (R)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Belinda Nedjai (B)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Indira Mendiola-Pastrana (I)

Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.

Leith León-Maldonado (L)

Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, Ciudad de México, México.
Cátedra-CONACYT, Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.

Berenice Rivera-Paredez (B)

Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.
Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, Ciudad de México, México.

Paula Ramírez-Palacios (P)

Unidad de Investigación Epidemiológica y en Servicios de Salud, Delegación Morelos, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.

Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce (E)

Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, México.

Jack Cuzick (J)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Jorge Salmerón (J)

Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma, Ciudad de México, México.

Articles similaires

Genome, Chloroplast Phylogeny Genetic Markers Base Composition High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Classifications MeSH