Evaluation of Host Gene Methylation as a Triage Test for HPV-Positive Women-A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of a host gene methylation marker panel (ASTN1, DLX1, ITGA4, RXFP3, SOX17, and ZNF671) in the triage of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women, its possible impact in a cervical cancer screening program, and the possible influence of the variation of the rate of HPV16/18 in its performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study in which consecutive women referred for colposcopy in an organized cervical cancer screening program had repeated HPV testing, colposcopy, and biopsies. The women that remained HPV positive at the time of colposcopy were tested with the panel of DNA methylation markers. The performance of the test was evaluated and compared to standard practice. RESULTS: The study test had a sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ of 60.8% (49.1-71.6%) and 88.4% (83.2-92.5%), respectively. For CIN3+, it was of 78.0% (64.0-88.5%) and 86.0% (80.8-90.2%), respectively.The rate and level of methylation positively correlated with the severity of disease. The use of methylation reduces the referral for colposcopy to 25.5%, while detecting 78.0% of the CIN3+ cases. Referral of all HPV16/18-positive cases and triage of the other high-risk HPV-positive cases with methylation, detects 90.0% of the cases of CIN3+, while reducing the number of referrals to 43.2%.The variation in the rate of HPV16/18 does not relevantly affect the performance of the methylation panel. CONCLUSIONS: The studied methylation panel has a high sensitivity and specificity for CIN3+ and reduces the rate of referrals for colposcopy, without relevant variation according to the rate of HPV16/18.

Evaluation of CIN2/3 Lesion Regression in GynTect® DNA Methylation-Marker-Negative Patients in a Longitudinal Study.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2/3 has a high spontaneous regression rate, especially among women ≤29 years of age. To reduce overtreatment, reliable prognostic biomarkers would be helpful. The main aim of this study was to analyze the negative predictive value of the methylation marker panel GynTect® for lesion regression. In this prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational proof-of-concept study, women aged ≤29 years with histologically confirmed CIN2 (n = 24) or CIN3 (n = 36) were closely monitored without treatment for up to 24 or 12 months, respectively. The outcome was either regression, persistence, or progression of the lesion. For each patient, a single baseline sample (V0) for cytology, hrHPV detection and methylation analysis was taken. In a primary analysis, the negative predictive value (NPV) of a GynTect®-negative test result at V0 for regression was determined. We tested the null hypothesis NPV ≤ 70% against the alternative hypothesis NPV ≥ 90%. Twelve of the eighteen GynTect®-negative CIN2 patients showed regression (NPV = 67%, 90% CI 44-85%, p = 0.53). Of the 27 GynTect®-negative CIN3 lesions, 15 regressed (NPV = 56%, 90% CI 38-72%, p = 0.92). Although the majority of GynTect®-negative lesions regressed, the postulated NPV of ≥90% was not observed. Thus, the clinical relevance for an implementation of the GynTect® assay for patients undergoing watchful waiting remains questionable. Further studies with longer observation periods should be undertaken.

High Detection Rate for Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Using an Approved DNA Methylation Signature Test.

INTRODUCTION: Cystoscopy and transurethral resection are the current reference standard tests to diagnose and histologically confirm non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). In other tumor entities (ie, colon carcinoma, cervical cancer), DNA methylation markers have been approved as diagnostic tests with high diagnostic power. In our case-control study, we used an approved molecular cervical cancer diagnostics test that includes 6 DNA methylation markers (GynTect) for the detection of bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included samples from 40 patients with bladder cancer and 34 control subjects. In a pilot study, we analyzed DNA methylation in 38 tumor tissues and 4 healthy ureters using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. Subsequently, we determined the sensitivity and specificity of the GynTect for the detection of bladder cancer in urine sediments from 40 patients with bladder cancer and 30 control subjects with benign prostatic hyperplasia or urolithiasis. RESULTS: The markers showed very different methylation rates in the NMIBC tissues, ranging from 2.6% to 78.9%. No methylation of any of the markers was detectable in the healthy ureters. Using the urine sediments from the patients with cancer and control subjects, we found surprisingly high sensitivity and specificity for the GynTect assay (60% and 96.7%, respectively). The application of different algorithms for evaluation of the markers included in GynTect resulted in a sensitivity of ≤ 90% and specificity of ≤ 100%. CONCLUSION: The GynTect assay, originally designed for cervical cancer diagnostics, showed unexpectedly high diagnostic accuracy for bladder cancer detection. The inclusion of additional methylation markers might allow for the development of a suitable diagnostic marker set based on the GynTect test for NMIBC diagnostics.