Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27415009›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

FAM19A4 methylation analysis in self-samples compared with cervical scrapes for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women.

Roosmarijn Luttmer, Lise M A De Strooper, Maaike G Dijkstra, Johannes Berkhof, Peter J F Snijders, Renske D M Steenbergen, Folkert J van Kemenade, Lawrence Rozendaal, Theo J M Helmerhorst, René H M Verheijen and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Performance ofBMJ open · 2024
    Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Clinical Regression of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Is Associated With Absence ofJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

18 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Roosmarijn LuttmerDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lise M A De StrooperDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maaike G DijkstraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes BerkhofDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter J F SnijdersDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Renske D M SteenbergenDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Folkert J van KemenadeDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Lawrence RozendaalDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Theo J M HelmerhorstDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
René H M VerheijenUMC Utrecht Cancer Center, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W Abraham Ter HarmselRoosevelt Clinic, Rooseveltstraat 67, 2321 CT Leiden, The Netherlands.
W Marchien van BaalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Flevo Hospital, Hospitaalweg 1, 1315 RA Almere, The Netherlands.
Peppino G C M GraziosiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Wim G V QuintDDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Visseringlaan 25, 2288 ER Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
Johan W M SpruijtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dorenda K E van DijkenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis West, Oosterpark 9, 1091 AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniëlle A M HeidemanDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Chris J L M MeijerDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLDDL Diagnostic Laboratory · NLErasmus MC · NLOLVG · NLRoosevelt Institute for American Studies · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women require triage to identify those with cervical high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer (⩾CIN3 (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3)). FAM19A4 methylation analysis, which detects advanced CIN and cancer, is applicable to different sample types. However, studies comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes are lacking.

methodsWe compared the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis (and/or HPV16/18 genotyping) in self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes for ⩾CIN3 detection in hrHPV-positive women (n=450,18-66 years).

resultsOverall FAM19A4 methylation levels between sample types were significantly correlated, with strongest correlation in women with ⩾CIN3 (Spearman's ρ 0.697, P<0.001). The performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis and/or HPV16/18 genotyping did not differ significantly between sample types. In women ⩾30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 78.4% in self-samples and 88.2% in scrapes (ratio 0.89; CI: 0.75-1.05). In women <30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivities were 37.5% and 45.8%, respectively (ratio 0.82; CI: 0.55-1.21). In both groups, ⩾CIN3 specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was significantly higher in self-samples compared with scrapes.

conclusionsFAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples had a slightly lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for ⩾CIN3 compared with paired physician-taken scrapes. With a similarly good clinical performance in both sample types, combined FAM19A4 methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping provides a feasible triage strategy for hrHPV-positive women, with direct applicability on self-samples.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAlphapapillomavirusBiopsyCytokinesFemaleHumansPrecancerous ConditionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCytokinesTAFA4 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27415009
PMCPMC4997542
OpenAlexW2472617754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.