BACKGROUND: Aberrant promoter methylation of selective tumor suppressor genes has been detected in squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) and invasive cervical cancer. Identification of methylation profiles of genes that can distinguish high-grade SIL (HSIL) from low-grade SIL (LSIL), and cytologically negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) residual liquid-based Papanicolaou (Pap) tests may be potentially useful as an ancillary test for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: Using real-time quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (QMSP), the authors analyzed the frequency and relative level of promoter methylation for DAPK1, IGSF4, SPARC, and TFPI2 in biopsy-confirmed HSIL and LSIL, and NILM residual liquid-based Pap tests. The percentage of methylation (%M) for each gene was calculated using the reference gene, ACTB. The cumulative methylation score for each sample, defined as the sum of %M of all 4 genes, was used to analyze the genes in combination. RESULTS: For each gene analyzed the frequency and relative level of methylation were increased in HSIL compared with combined NILM/LSIL samples. The cumulative methylation scores were significantly higher in HSIL samples (P < .0001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) demonstrated that methylation of each gene could distinguish HSIL from NILM/LSIL samples (AUC range, 0.6-0.67; P < or = .0028). The combination of 4 genes showed improved test performance (AUC = 0.76; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in cumulative methylation in HSIL cases with histologic outcomes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) versus CIN3. There was no association between the methylation of any gene and the presence of human papillomavirus. CONCLUSIONS: The methylation profile of multiple genes in combination can better distinguish HSIL from combined NILM/LSIL samples. Although aberrant DNA methylation has the potential to function as a molecular biomarker of HSIL in liquid-based Pap tests, additional genes that are selectively methylated in HSIL are needed to improve the clinical performance. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society
BACKGROUND: Aberrant promoter methylation of selective tumor suppressor genes has been detected in squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) and invasive cervical cancer. Identification of methylation profiles of genes that can distinguish high-grade SIL (HSIL) from low-grade SIL (LSIL), and cytologically negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) residual liquid-based Papanicolaou (Pap) tests may be potentially useful as an ancillary test for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: Using real-time quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (QMSP), the authors analyzed the frequency and relative level of promoter methylation for DAPK1, IGSF4, SPARC, and TFPI2 in biopsy-confirmed HSIL and LSIL, and NILM residual liquid-based Pap tests. The percentage of methylation (%M) for each gene was calculated using the reference gene, ACTB. The cumulative methylation score for each sample, defined as the sum of %M of all 4 genes, was used to analyze the genes in combination. RESULTS: For each gene analyzed the frequency and relative level of methylation were increased in HSIL compared with combined NILM/LSIL samples. The cumulative methylation scores were significantly higher in HSIL samples (P < .0001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) demonstrated that methylation of each gene could distinguish HSIL from NILM/LSIL samples (AUC range, 0.6-0.67; P < or = .0028). The combination of 4 genes showed improved test performance (AUC = 0.76; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in cumulative methylation in HSIL cases with histologic outcomes of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) versus CIN3. There was no association between the methylation of any gene and the presence of human papillomavirus. CONCLUSIONS: The methylation profile of multiple genes in combination can better distinguish HSIL from combined NILM/LSIL samples. Although aberrant DNA methylation has the potential to function as a molecular biomarker of HSIL in liquid-based Pap tests, additional genes that are selectively methylated in HSIL are needed to improve the clinical performance. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society
Authors: Nathalie Reesink-Peters; G Bea A Wisman; Carmen Jéronimo; C Yutaka Tokumaru; Yoram Cohen; Seung Myung Dong; Harrie G Klip; Henk J Buikema; Albert J H Suurmeijer; Harrie Hollema; H Marieke Boezen; David Sidransky; Ate G J van der Zee Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; Ann Moriarty; Dennis O'Connor; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Mark Sherman; David Wilbur; Thomas Wright; Nancy Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nubia Muñoz; F Xavier Bosch; Silvia de Sanjosé; Rolando Herrero; Xavier Castellsagué; Keerti V Shah; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renske D M Steenbergen; Debbie Kramer; Boudewijn J M Braakhuis; Peter L Stern; René H M Verheijen; Chris J L M Meijer; Peter J F Snijders Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mary Jo Fackler; Megan McVeigh; Jyoti Mehrotra; Marissa A Blum; Julie Lange; Amanda Lapides; Elizabeth Garrett; Pedram Argani; Saraswati Sukumar Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Divya A Patel; Laura S Rozek; Justin A Colacino; Adrienne Van Zomeren-Dohm; Mack T Ruffin; Elizabeth R Unger; Dana C Dolinoy; David C Swan; Juanita Onyekwuluje; Cecilia R DeGraffinreid; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Shanna A Arnold; Lee B Rivera; Andrew F Miller; Juliet G Carbon; Sean P Dineen; Yang Xie; Diego H Castrillon; E Helene Sage; Pauli Puolakkainen; Amy D Bradshaw; Rolf A Brekken Journal: Dis Model Mech Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 5.758