학술논문
DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Document Type
Academic Journal
Source
Clinical Epigenetics. August 2, 2023, Vol. 15 Issue 1
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1868-7075
Abstract
Author(s): Sofia Salta[sup.1,2,3], João Lobo[sup.1,4,5], Bruno Magalhães[sup.6,7,8], Rui Henrique[sup.1,4,5] and Carmen Jerónimo[sup.1,5] Background Currently, cervical cancer remains a significant public health concern at global level. Not only does it represent [...]
Background Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women. Methods Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. Results Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively. Conclusions This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs. Keywords: Cervical cancer screening, Triage, DNA methylation, Biomarkers, Colposcopy referral
Background Screening plays a key role in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, a highly sensitive test but with limited specificity, has become the gold standard frontline for screening programs. Thus, the importance of effective triage strategies, including DNA methylation markers, has been emphasized. Despite the potential reported in individual studies, methylation markers still require validation before being recommended for clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of DNA methylation-based biomarkers for detecting high-grade intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in hrHPV-positive women. Methods Hence, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that assessed methylation in hrHPV-positive women in cervical scrapes. Histologically confirmed HSIL was used as endpoint and QUADAS-2 tool enabled assessment of study quality. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to pool the estimated sensitivity and specificity as well as positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. Results Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis, from which cohort and referral population-based studies corresponded to nearly 65%. Most of the women analyzed were Dutch, and CADM1, FAM19A4, MAL, and miR124-2 were the most studied genes. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.68 (CI 95% 0.63-0.72) and 0.75 (CI 95% 0.71-0.80) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection, respectively. For CIN3+ detection, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 (CI 95% 0.74-0.82) and 0.74 (CI 95% 0.69-0.78), respectively. For pooled prevalence, PPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.514 and 0.392, respectively. Furthermore, NPV for CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection were 0.857 and 0.938, respectively. Conclusions This meta-analysis confirmed the great potential of DNA methylation-based biomarkers as triage tool for hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Standardization and improved validation are, however, required. Nevertheless, these markers might represent an excellent alternative to cytology and genotyping for colposcopy referral of hrHPV-positive women, allowing for more cost-effective screening programs. Keywords: Cervical cancer screening, Triage, DNA methylation, Biomarkers, Colposcopy referral