Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Primary screening for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) with cytological triage for women with non-16/18 hrHPV-positive status has become popular in China. However, cytology relies on the subjective judgment of pathologists, leading to inconsistent clinical performance.
Methods: A total of 657 hrHPV-positive women aged 25-64 years were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. All participants underwent colposcopic biopsy after cytology triage, with cytology residual specimens undergoing DNA methylation testing. CIN2+ and CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity were compared between the different triage strategies (n=487): PAX1 methylation (PAX1) , Glycophorin C methylation (GYPC), cytology, and combinations between them or with HPV16/18.
Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for PAX1 and GYPC in detecting CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) were 0.867 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.796-0.937) and 0.873 (95% CI: 0.808-0.938), respectively. The sensitivities of PAX1 and GYPC were consistent with those of cytology for both CIN2+ and CIN3+ detection. The relative specificities of PAX1 and GYPC for CIN2+ detection compared to cytology were 2.83 (95% CI: 2.33-2.45) and 3.09 (95% CI: 2.40-3.98), respectively. The relative specificities of combining HPV 16/18 with PAX1 and GYPC for CIN2+ detection compared to cytology were 3.38 (95% CI: 2.96-3.86) and 3.67 (95% CI: 3.15-4.27), respectively. Compared to low levels of DNA methylation, high levels of PAX1 and GYPC resulted in odd ratios (ORs) of 57.66 (95% CI: 13.57-409.12, p < 0.001) and 23.87 (95% CI: 6.49-115.42, p < 0.001) for CIN3+, adjusted for HPV 16/18 and cytology results.
Conclusions: PAX1 and GYPC demonstrated superior ability to identify cervical precancerous lesions and cervical cancer, with AUC values exceeding 0.85. For detecting CIN2+/CIN3+ in women with hrHPV-positive status, DNA methylation (combined with HPV 16/18) showed higher specificity than cytology (combined with HPV 16/18) and is a potential molecular biomarker for detecting cervical (pre)cancer.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536530 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13126-4 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!