Methylation markers FAM19A4 and miR124-2 as triage strategy for primary human papillomavirus screen positive women: A large European multicenter study.

In human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical cancer screening, cytology is used as triage to counter the low specificity of HPV testing. VALID-SCREEN is a EU-multicenter, retrospective study conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation-based molecular triage test as a substitute or addition to cytology as reflex testing of HPV screen positive women. FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test (QIAsure Methylation Test) was evaluated in 2384 HPV-positive cervical screening samples, from women 29-76 years of age, derived from four EU countries. Specimens were collected in ThinPrep or SurePath media, HPV-status, concurrent cytology, and histology diagnosis were provided by the parent institutes. The control population consisted of women with no evidence of disease within 2 years of follow-up. A total of 899 histologies were retrieved; 527 showed no disease, 124 CIN2 (5.2%), 228 CIN3 (9.6%) and 20 cervical cancers (0.8%); 19 of 20 screen-detected cervical cancers were found methylation-positive (sensitivity 95%). Overall specificity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test was 78.3% (n = 2013; 95%CI: 76-80). The negative predictive value of hrHPV positive, methylation-negative outcomes were 99.9% for cervical cancer (N = 1694; 95%CI: 99.6-99.99), 96.9% for ≥CIN3 (95%CI: 96-98), and 93.0% for ≥CIN2 (95%CI: 92-94). Overall sensitivity for CIN3 using FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test was 77% (n = 228; 95%CI: 71-82). CIN3 sensitivity was uniform between centers independent of sample collection medias, DNA extraction methods and HPV screening tests. Being objectively reported compared to the subjectivity of cytology, equally performing across settings and screening methods, the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation constitute an alternative/supplement to cytology as triage method to be investigated in real-life pilot implementation.

Clinical relevance of the borderline results of the Hybrid Capture 2 High-Risk HPV DNA assay with cervical samples collected in Specimen Transport Medium.

Background The Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) High-Risk HPV DNA assay serves as a triage test in the Slovenian national cervical cancer screening programme ZORA. To improve the limited analytical accuracy of HC2 test results near the cut-off value (1.0 relative light units/cut-off (RLU/CO)), we follow an internal protocol of repeating the test on all samples with borderline results within the 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO interval. The aim of the study was (i) to determine the clinical relevance of HC2 test results within three different "grey zones" for samples stored in Specimen Transport Medium (STM) and (ii) to determine whether the current algorithm of retesting "grey zone" STM specimens with the HC2 assay is clinically relevant. Patients and methods The study included 594 women between 20 and 65 years of age. All participating women were referred for colposcopy, and in cases of abnormal results, biopsy was performed. We assessed the distribution of HC2 test results and the corresponding proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) lesions in three different "grey zones" (1.0-2.5, 0.4-4.0 and 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO), retested specimens with results within a 0.4-4.0 RLU/CO interval and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for HC2 at different RLU/CO values. Results The proportion of specimens within 1.0-2.5, 0.4-4.0 and 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO intervals was 3.9%, 10.8% and 4.5%, respectively. The proportion of CIN2+ lesions within these "grey zones" was 2.5%, 5.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Retesting the samples did not detect any additional CIN2+ cases. Within the 1.0-2.5 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 93.8% to 91.4%, while the specificity increased from 63.3% to 67.5%; for the 0.4-4.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 95.1% to 89.5%, while the specificity increased from 56.8% to 69.4%; and for the 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity remained nearly constant (94.4 vs. 93.2%), while the specificity increased from 60.6% to 66.4%. Conclusions Our results show that retesting STM samples within the "grey zones" is not necessary. Retesting samples in the negative "grey zone" does not increase sensitivity, and retesting in the positive "grey zone" is not followed by a less intensive management of women, since these women are recalled regardless of the results of the retest. Furthermore, the majority of samples retain the original HC2 results after retest, and the number of CIN2+ lesions among women with "grey zone" HC2 results is low.