2019
DOI: 10.1186/s13148-019-0743-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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 colp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

6
61
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
6
61
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the one hand, it is not crucial to detect all pre-cancer lesions in the first screening because most of pre-cancer lesions regress or progress slowly. However, cancers are not reversible, and S5 classifier detected all cancer cases in our study and three other previous studies [18][19][20]. These results indicate that S5 is safe for detecting all cancer cases and 89.1% of (His)HSIL+ cases.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…On the one hand, it is not crucial to detect all pre-cancer lesions in the first screening because most of pre-cancer lesions regress or progress slowly. However, cancers are not reversible, and S5 classifier detected all cancer cases in our study and three other previous studies [18][19][20]. These results indicate that S5 is safe for detecting all cancer cases and 89.1% of (His)HSIL+ cases.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…high sensitivity and high specificity would provide additional information for women with discrepant results of HPV16/18 and cytology. Another encouraging finding of our study is reanalysis of the diagnostic utility of S5 reported in three earlier studies, a large screening study in the UK, a nested case-control triage study in Mexico [18], and a randomized control trial in Canada [21]. In the hrHPVbased screening study from the UK, using a cutoff of 0.8 for S5, the AUC of the 0.8 cutoff was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.88) for HSIL+ but had a lower specificity of 20.9%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 70%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A number of studies have explored the role of a panel that includes EPB41L3, [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] JAM3, [25] or both [7,[26][27][28][29][30] for the screening or triage of HSIL and/or cervical cancer. In this validation trial, the performance of DNA methylation assessment based on the EPB41L3 and JAM3 genes was similar to that of our training set, [14] and the assessment showed favorable results in identifying CIN2+ or ADC .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%