Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26921784›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2016

Validation of the FAM19A4/mir124-2 DNA methylation test for both lavage- and brush-based self-samples to detect cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women.

Lise M A De Strooper, Viola M J Verhoef, Johannes Berkhof, Albertus T Hesselink, Helena M E de Bruin, Folkert J van Kemenade, Remko P Bosgraaf, Ruud L M Bekkers, Leon F A G Massuger, Willem J G Melchers and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. SOX1/PAX1 Methylation for Triage of HPV-Positive Women in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Performance ofBMJ open · 2024
    Observational

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Lise M A De StrooperDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.destrooper@vumc.nl.
Viola M J VerhoefDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: v.verhoef@vumc.nl.
Johannes BerkhofDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: h.berkhof@vumc.nl.
Albertus T HesselinkSelf-Screen B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.hesselink@vumc.nl.
Helena M E de BruinDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: hmedebruin@gmail.com.
Folkert J van KemenadeDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.vankemenade@erasmusmc.nl.
Remko P BosgraafDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Remko.Bosgraaf@radboudumc.nl.
Ruud L M BekkersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Ruud.Bekkers@radboudumc.nl.
Leon F A G MassugerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Leon.Massuger@radboudumc.nl.
Willem J G MelchersDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Willem.Melchers@radboudumc.nl.
Renske D M SteenbergenDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.steenbergen@vumc.nl.
Peter J F SnijdersDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: pjf.snijders@vumc.nl.
Chris J L M MeijerDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cjlm.meijer@vumc.nl.
Daniëlle A M HeidemanDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: dam.heideman@vumc.nl.

Funding

European Research Council 322986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDNA methylation analysis of cancer-related genes is a promising tool for HPV-positive women to identify those with cervical (pre)cancer (CIN3+) in need of treatment. However, clinical performance of methylation markers can be influenced by the sample type utilized. We describe a multiplex quantitative methylation-specific PCR that targets FAM19A4 and mir124-2 loci, to detect CIN3+ using both HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples.

methodsWe determined methylation thresholds for clinical classification using HPV-positive training sets comprising lavage self-samples of 182 women (including 40 with CIN3+) and brush self-samples of 224 women (including 61 with CIN3+). Subsequently, independent HPV-positive validation sets of 389 lavage self-samples (including 78 with CIN3+), and 254 brush self-samples (including 72 with CIN3+) were tested using the preset thresholds. Furthermore, the clinical performance of combined methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping was determined.

resultsTraining set analysis revealed similar FAM19A4 and mir124-2 thresholds for both self-sample types to yield highest CIN3+ sensitivity at 70% specificity. Validation set analysis resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 70.5% (95%CI: 60.4-80.6) at a specificity of 67.8% (95%CI: 62.7-73.0) for lavage self-samples, and a CIN3+ sensitivity of 69.4% (95%CI: 58.8-80.1) at a 76.4% (95%CI: 70.2-82.6) specificity for brush self-samples. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, CIN3+ sensitivity and specificity were 88.5% (95%CI: 81.4-95.6) and 46.0% (95%CI: 40.4-51.5) for lavage self-samples, and 84.7% (95%CI: 76.4-93.0) and 54.9% (95%CI: 47.7-62.2) for brush self-samples.

conclusionsFAM19A4/mir124-2 methylation analysis performs equally well in HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples to identify women with CIN3+. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, significantly higher CIN3+ sensitivities are obtained, at decreased specificity.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdultCytokinesFemaleGenotypeHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansMicroRNAsMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsCytokinesMicroRNAsMIRN124 microRNA, humanTAFA4 protein, humanCervical cancerDNA methylationHPV16/18 genotypingHuman papillomavirusMolecular screeningReflex testSelf-sampling

Identifiers

PMID26921784
PMCPMC4851217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.