[A multicenter study on the accuracy of PAX1/JAM3 dual genes methylation testing for screening cervical cancer].

Objective: To explore the value of cervical cytologic DNA methylation for screening cervical cancer. Methods: This study was a prospective multicenter study conducted from May to October 2022 in Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Women who accepted opportunistic cervical cancer screening in gynecological outpatient clinics were subjected to liquid-based thin-layer cytology testing (TCT), high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing and PAX1/JAM3 dual-genes methylation testing (PAX1m/JAM3m). Colposcopy evaluation and biopsy were offered to women according to current guidelines. The accuracies of various testing methods and their combinations were compared based on histological diagnosis. Results: A total of 1 184 samples diagnosed by histopathology were included in this study, consisting of 541 cases (45.7%) of benign cervical tissue or chronic cervicitis, 273 (23.1%) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, 168 (14.2%) of CIN2, 140 (11.8%) of CIN3, and 62 (5.2%) of cervical cancer. The sensitivity and specificity of PAX1m/JAM3m testing for detecting CIN2 or more severe lesions (CIN2+) were 74.1% and 95.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of PAX1m/JAM3m testing for detecting CIN3+were 87.6% and 86.8%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that, for detecting CIN3+, the area under curve of PAX1m/JAM3m testing (0.872, 95%CI: 0.847-0.897) was significantly superior to TCT testing (0.580, 95%CI: 0.551-0.610) or hrHPV testing (0.503, 95%CI: 0.479-0.515) (all P values<0.05). Conclusions: The PAX1m/JAM3m test in cervical exfoliated cells has excellent accuracy for the diagnosis of both CIN2+and CIN3+, which is superior to traditional screening protocols and screening strategies.

[Treatment and prognosis analysis of 488 patients with FIGO 2018 stage â ¢c squamous cervical cancer].

Objective: To analyze the treatment and prognosis of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018 stage Ⅲc cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: A total of 488 patients at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between May, 2013 to May, 2015 were enrolled. The clinical characteristics and prognosis were compared according to the treatment mode (surgery combined with postoperative chemoradiotherapy vs radical concurrent chemoradiotherapy). The median follow-up time was (96±12) months ( range time from 84 to 108 months). Results: (1) The data were divided into surgery combined with chemoradiotherapy group (surgery group) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy group (radiotherapy group), including 324 cases in the surgery group and 164 cases in the radiotherapy group. There were significant differences in Eastern Cooperation Oncology Group (ECOG) score, FIGO 2018 stage, large tumors (≥4 cm), total treatment time and total treatment cost between the two groups (all P<0.01). (2) Prognosis: ① for stage Ⅲc1 patients, there were 299 patients in the surgery group with 250 patients survived (83.6%). In the radiotherapy group, 74 patients survived (52.9%). The difference of survival rates between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). For stage Ⅲc2 patients, there were 25 patients in surgery group with 12 patients survived (48.0%). In the radiotherapy group, there were 24 cases, 8 cases survived, the survival rate was 33.3%. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.296). ② For patients with large tumors (≥4 cm) in the surgery group, there were 138 patients in the Ⅲc1 group with 112 patients survived (81.2%); in the radiotherapy group, there were 108 cases with 56 cases survived (51.9%). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). Large tumors accounted for 46.2% (138/299) vs 77.1% (108/140) in the surgery group and radiotherapy group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.001). Further stratified analysis, a total of 46 patients with large tumors of FIGO 2009 stage Ⅱb in the radiotherapy group were extracted, and the survival rate was 67.4%, there was no significant difference compared with the surgery group (81.2%; P=0.052). ③ Of 126 patients with common iliac lymph node, 83 patients survived, with a survival rate of 65.9% (83/126). In the surgery group, 48 patients survived and 17 died, with a survival rate of 73.8%. In the radiotherapy group, 35 patients survived and 26 died, with a survival rate of 57.4%. There were no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.051). (3) Side effects: the incidence of lymphocysts and intestinal obstruction in the surgery group were higher than those in the radiotherapy group, and the incidence of ureteral obstruction and acute and chronic radiation enteritis were lower than those in the radiotherapy group, and there were statistically significant differences (all P<0.01). Conclusions: For stage Ⅲc1 patients who meet the conditions for surgery, surgery combined with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical chemoradiotherapy are acceptable treatment methods regardless of pelvic lymph node metastasis (excluding common iliac lymph node metastasis), even if the maximum diameter of the tumor is ≥4 cm. For patients with common iliac lymph node metastasis and stage Ⅲc2, there is no significant difference in the survival rate between the two treatment methods. Based on the duration of treatment and economic considerations, concurrent chemoradiotherapy is recommended for the patients.