DNA methylation as a triage marker for colposcopy referral in HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clin Epigenetics

Cancer Biology & Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP) / RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) / Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca (Porto.CCC), Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal.

Published: August 2023

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10399027PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13148-023-01537-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cervical cancer
12
hrhpv-positive women
12
sensitivity specificity
12
dna methylation
8
colposcopy referral
8
cancer screening
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
screening programs
8
methylation markers
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!