2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.07.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PAX1 methylation as an auxiliary biomarker for cervical cancer screening: A meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second tested biomarker, PAX1 m , has also been reported as a useful biomarker for cervical cancer in the screening and triage of cytology and for the detection cervical adenocarcinoma. The results of this meta-analysis support the utility of PAX1 m as an auxiliary biomarker in cervical cancer screening [ 33 ], as algorithm 1 demonstrated 89.87 % sensitivity and 75.95 % specificity for PAX1 m in combination with HPV16/18 and cytology testing, which is higher than the values obtained by testing any of these factors alone.…”
Section: Case Presentationsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…The second tested biomarker, PAX1 m , has also been reported as a useful biomarker for cervical cancer in the screening and triage of cytology and for the detection cervical adenocarcinoma. The results of this meta-analysis support the utility of PAX1 m as an auxiliary biomarker in cervical cancer screening [ 33 ], as algorithm 1 demonstrated 89.87 % sensitivity and 75.95 % specificity for PAX1 m in combination with HPV16/18 and cytology testing, which is higher than the values obtained by testing any of these factors alone.…”
Section: Case Presentationsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Mersakova et al (2018) and Rong et al (2019) have recently shown that CADM1 is a potential biomarker for cervical cancer. There was a significant difference in the promoter Kan et al, 2014;Lai et al, 2014;Kong et al, 2015;Nikolaidis et al, 2015;Xu et al, 2015Xu et al, , 2018Chen et al, 2016;Liou et al, 2016;Huang et al, 2017;Fang et al, Lee et al, 2006;Yeon et al, 2018 methylation of plasma CADM1 and its D-dimer between healthy individuals and those with cervical cancer. Combining these factors to predict metastasis revealed high specificity (90.5%) and sensitivity (80.4%) (Rong et al, 2019).…”
Section: Dna Methylation In the Early Diagnosis Of Cervical Cancermentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A meta-analysis comprising Asian individuals revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of PAX1 methylation is 73 and 87%, respectively in HSIL/CIN3 + /cervical cancer patients (Chen et al, 2016). Another meta-analysis used 1,385 individuals with different stages of CIN to show that the sensitivity and specificity of PAX1 methylation in CIN3 + samples are 77% and 92%, respectively (Nikolaidis et al, 2015). In summary, different geographical locations and various methods (especially using combinations) affect the sensitivity and specificity of detecting PAX1 methylation.…”
Section: Diagnostic Dna Methylation Biomarkers For Hpv-positive and Nmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, combining analysis of host gene methylation with hrHPV DNA testing appears to be a new strategy in cervical cancer screening. Better specificity for host gene methylation status could improve the accuracy of detection of advanced cervical abnormalities in HPV-positive women [14]. ZNF582 and a methylation panel tested in parallel with testing for hrHPV DNA has a greater accuracy for detection of CIN2 and more severe lesions than gene methylation alone [1516].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%