F J Vink1, B I Lissenberg-Witte2, C J L M Meijer1, J Berkhof2, F J van Kemenade3, A G Siebers4, R D M Steenbergen1, M C G Bleeker1, D A M Heideman5. 1. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. PALGA, the Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo- and Cytopathology in the Netherlands, Houten, the Netherlands. 5. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: dam.heideman@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cross-sectional and long-term triage performance of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis within a Dutch population-based HPV-positive study cohort of women aged 30-60 years (n = 979). Cross-sectional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as well as cumulative CIN3+ or cervical cancer risks after 9 and 14 years were compared for three baseline triage strategies: (1) cytology, (2) FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis and (3) combined FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation with cytology. RESULTS: CIN3+ sensitivity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis was similar to that of cytology (71.3% vs 76.0%, ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05), at a lower specificity (78.3% vs 87.0%, ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Combining FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis with cytology resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI 78.3 to 90.8) at a specificity of 69.6% (95% CI 66.5 to 72.7). Similar 9- and 14-year CIN3+ risks for baseline cytology-negative women and baseline FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-negative women were observed, with risk differences of -0.42% (95% CI -2.1 to 1.4) and -0.07% (95% CI -1.9 to 1.9), respectively. The 14-year cumulative cervical cancer incidence was significantly lower for methylation-negative women compared to cytology-negative women (risk difference 0.98%, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.0). DISCUSSION: FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis has a good triage performance on baseline screening samples, with a cross-sectional CIN3+ sensitivity and long-term triage-negative CIN3+ risk equalling cytology triage. Therefore, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis appears to be a good and objective alternative to cytology in triage scenarios in HPV-based cervical screening.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cross-sectional and long-term triage performance of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis within a Dutch population-based HPV-positive study cohort of women aged 30-60 years (n = 979). Cross-sectional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as well as cumulative CIN3+ or cervical cancer risks after 9 and 14 years were compared for three baseline triage strategies: (1) cytology, (2) FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis and (3) combined FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation with cytology. RESULTS: CIN3+ sensitivity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis was similar to that of cytology (71.3% vs 76.0%, ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05), at a lower specificity (78.3% vs 87.0%, ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Combining FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis with cytology resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI 78.3 to 90.8) at a specificity of 69.6% (95% CI 66.5 to 72.7). Similar 9- and 14-year CIN3+ risks for baseline cytology-negative women and baseline FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-negative women were observed, with risk differences of -0.42% (95% CI -2.1 to 1.4) and -0.07% (95% CI -1.9 to 1.9), respectively. The 14-year cumulative cervical cancer incidence was significantly lower for methylation-negative women compared to cytology-negative women (risk difference 0.98%, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.0). DISCUSSION: FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis has a good triage performance on baseline screening samples, with a cross-sectional CIN3+ sensitivity and long-term triage-negative CIN3+ risk equalling cytology triage. Therefore, FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis appears to be a good and objective alternative to cytology in triage scenarios in HPV-based cervical screening.
Authors: Stèfanie Dick; Frederique J Vink; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Chris J L M Meijer; Johannes Berkhof Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Wieke W Kremer; Stèfanie Dick; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Renske D M Steenbergen; Maaike C G Bleeker; Harold R Verhoeve; W Marchien van Baal; Nienke van Trommel; Gemma G Kenter; Chris J L M Meijer; Johannes Berkhof Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Fernando Dias Gonçalves Lima; Ramon P van der Zee; Stèfanie Dick; Carel J M van Noesel; Johannes Berkhof; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Jan M Prins; Renske D M Steenbergen; Henry J C de Vries Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lisanne Verhoef; A N Floore; Saskia Doorn; Kate Cuschieri; Ramya Bhatia; A T Hesselink; Chris J L M Meijer; Renske D M Steenbergen; Daniëlle A M Heideman Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 4.861