DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Value of PAX1 Methylation Analysis by MS-HRM in the Triage of Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance

  • Li, Shi-Rong (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Wang, Zhen-Ming (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Wang, Yu-Hui (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Wang, Xi-Bo (Department of Gynecology, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Zhao, Jian-Qiang (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Xue, Hai-Bin (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital) ;
  • Jiang, Fu-Guo (Department of Clinical Laboratory, Weifang City People's Hospital)
  • Published : 2015.09.02

Abstract

Background: Detection of cervical high grade lesions in patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) is still a challenge. Our study tested the efficacy of the paired boxed gene 1 (PAX1) methylation analysis by methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) in the detection of high grade lesions in ASCUS and compared performance with the hybrid capture 2 (HC2) human papillomavirus (HPV) test. Materials and Methods: A total of 463 consecutive ASCUS women from primary screening were selected. Their cervical scrapings were collected and assessed by PAX1 methylation analysis (MS-HRM) and high-risk HPV-DNA test (HC2). All patients with ASCUS were admitted to colposcopy and cervical biopsies. The Chisquare test was used to test the differences of PAX1 methylation or HPV infection between groups. Results: The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy for detecting CIN2 + lesions were: 95.6%, 82.4%, and 94.6%, respectively, for the PAX1 MS-HRM test; and 59.7%, 64.7%, and 60.0% for the HC2 HPV test. Conclusions: The PAX1 methylation analysis by MS-HRM demonstrated a better performance than the high-risk HPV-DNA test for the detection of high grade lesions (CIN2 +) in ASCUS cases. This approach could screen out the majority of low grade cases of ASCUS, and thus reduce the referral rate to colposcopy.

References

  1. Andersson S, Dillner L, Elfgren K, et al (2005). A comparison of the human papillomavirus test and Papanicolaou smear as a second screening method for women with minor cytological abnormalities. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 84, 996-1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00702.x
  2. Andrae B, Smith P (1999). Clinical impact of quality assurance in an organized cervical screening program. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 78, 429-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780516.x
  3. Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al (2004). Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst, 96, 280-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh037
  4. Candiloro IL, Mikeska T, Dobrovic A (2011). Assessing combined methylation-sensitive high resolution melting and pyrosequencing for the analysis of heterogeneous DNA methylation. Epigenetics, 6, 500-7. https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.6.4.14853
  5. Carreon JD, Sherman ME, Guillen D, et al (2007). CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 26, 441-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab
  6. Dehn D, Torkko KC, Shroyer KR (2007). Human papillomavirus testing and molecular markers of cervical dysplasia and carcinoma. Cancer, 111, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22425
  7. Dimitrakopoulos L, Vorkas PA, Georgoulias V, Lianidou ES (2012). A closed-tube methylation-sensitive high resolution melting assay (MS-HRMA) for the semi-quantitative determination of CST6 promoter methylation in clinical samples. BMC Cancer, 12, 486. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-486
  8. Huang TH, Lai HC, Liu HW, et al (2010). Quantitative analysis of methylation status of the PAX1 gene for detection of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 20, 513-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181c7fe6e
  9. Lai HC, Lin YW, Huang TH, et al (2008). Identification of novel DNA methylation markers in cervical cancer. Int J Cancer, 123, 161-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23519
  10. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, et al (2009). Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst, 101, 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn444
  11. Nieh S, Chen SF, Chu TY, et al (2005). Is p16 (INK4A) expression more useful than human papillomavirus test to determine the outcome of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance-categorized Pap smear? A comparative analysis using abnormal cervical smears with follow-up biopsies. Gynecol Oncol, 97, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.11.034
  12. Park JS (1996). The role of HPV DNA testing in cervical neoplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 22, 611-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1996.tb01079.x
  13. Silverloo I, Andrae B, Wilander E (2009). Value of high-risk HPV-DNA testing in the triage of ASCUS. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 88, 1006-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340903160952
  14. Siriaunkgul S, Settakorn J, Sukpan K, et al (2014). Populationbased cervical cancer screening using high-risk HPV DNA test and liquid-based cytology in northern Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6837-42. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.16.6837
  15. Wang JL, Yang YZ, Dong WW, et al (2013). Application of human papillomavirus in screening for cervical cancer and precancerous lesions. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2979-82. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.5.2979
  16. Wentzensen N, Wilson LE, Wheeler CM, et al (2010). Hierarchical clustering of human papilloma virus genotype patterns in the ASCUS-LSIL triage study. Cancer Res, 70, 8578-86. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1188
  17. Wojdacz TK, Dobrovic A (2007). Methylation-sensitive high resolution melting (MS-HRM): a new approach for sensitive and high-throughput assessment of methylation. Nucleic Acids Res, 35, 41. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm013
  18. Wojdacz TK (2012). Methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting in the context of legislative requirements for validation of analytical procedures for diagnostic applications. Expert Rev Mol Diagn, 12, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1586/erm.11.88
  19. Wu W, Zhang J, Yang H, Shao Y, Yu B (2011). Examination of AKAP12 promoter methylation in skin cancer using methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting analysis. Clin Exp Dermatol, 36, 381-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2230.2010.03968.x
  20. Yarandi F, Shojaei H, Eftekhar Z, Izadi-Mood N (2009). Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, after six months delay: a three-year experience in an Iranian university hospital. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 49, 207-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2009.00960.x

Cited by

  1. PAX1 Methylation as a Potential Biomarker to Predict the Progression of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia vol.27, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001011
  2. ) gene methylation in cancer screening pp.23249269, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.506