DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biomarkers
Cervical cancer screening
Colposcopy referral
DNA methylation
Triage
Journal
Clinical epigenetics
ISSN: 1868-7083
Titre abrégé: Clin Epigenetics
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101516977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 08 2023
02 08 2023
Historique:
received:
14
03
2023
accepted:
21
07
2023
medline:
4
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
2
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women. Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively. This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women.
METHODS
Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37533074
doi: 10.1186/s13148-023-01537-2
pii: 10.1186/s13148-023-01537-2
pmc: PMC10399027
doi:
Substances chimiques
CADM1 protein, human
0
Cell Adhesion Molecule-1
0
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jan;144(1):51-56
pubmed: 28094038
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 22;8(37):62274-62285
pubmed: 28977944
Int J Cancer. 2021 Dec 1;149(11):1916-1925
pubmed: 34460099
Br J Cancer. 2022 Feb;126(2):259-264
pubmed: 34743198
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Sep 10;40(26):3037-3046
pubmed: 35512257
Int J Cancer. 2019 May 15;144(10):2587-2595
pubmed: 30412281
Br J Cancer. 2019 Nov;121(11):954-965
pubmed: 31616037
Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 15;148(2):396-405
pubmed: 32997803
Br J Cancer. 2016 Aug 23;115(5):579-87
pubmed: 27415009
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021 Jan;147(1):296-308
pubmed: 32446963
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Feb;136(2):189-97
pubmed: 25579108
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jan;27(1):125.e1-125.e6
pubmed: 32222459
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Oct;135(1):58-63
pubmed: 25111387
Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Mar;160(3):713-720
pubmed: 33451725
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Dec;123(12):745-54
pubmed: 26230283
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;224(2):200.e1-200.e9
pubmed: 32800820
Oncotarget. 2015 Dec 29;6(42):44373-87
pubmed: 26517242
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 19;9(3):e91905
pubmed: 24647315
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62(3):147-72
pubmed: 22422631
Clin Epigenetics. 2017 Oct 24;9:118
pubmed: 29090037
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Jul 15;24(14):3456-3464
pubmed: 29632006
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014 Dec;7(12):1251-7
pubmed: 25281488
Int J Cancer. 2021 Apr 1;148(7):1768-1777
pubmed: 33300604
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):169-182
pubmed: 30638582
J Cancer Policy. 2021 Jun;28:100280
pubmed: 35559909
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 28;27(5):687-97
pubmed: 17611957
Expert Rev Proteomics. 2021 Aug;18(8):675-691
pubmed: 34551656
Int J Cancer. 2016 Feb 15;138(4):992-1002
pubmed: 26317579
Br J Cancer. 2020 Aug;123(4):510-517
pubmed: 32507855
Int J Cancer. 2016 Jun 1;138(11):2745-51
pubmed: 26790008
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Jul 18;106(8):
pubmed: 25038467
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Apr;137(1):55-9
pubmed: 25667975
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 May;141(2):341-347
pubmed: 26921784
Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524-32
pubmed: 24192252
Br J Cancer. 2014 Sep 9;111(6):1095-101
pubmed: 25032730
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(6):501-512
pubmed: 27806357
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Mar;15(3):315-22
pubmed: 24529697
Int J Cancer. 2019 Feb 15;144(4):746-754
pubmed: 30259973
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jan 2;168(1):20-29
pubmed: 29181509
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Apr 15;17(8):2459-65
pubmed: 21389098
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Nov 1;70(3):311-8
pubmed: 26473640
BMJ. 2020 Aug 14;370:m2632
pubmed: 32816740
BMC Cancer. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):1182
pubmed: 30486875