Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32381054›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2020

Risk stratification of HPV 16 DNA methylation combined with E6 oncoprotein in cervical cancer screening: a 10-year prospective cohort study.

Li Dong, Li Zhang, Shang-Ying Hu, Rui-Mei Feng, Xue-Lian Zhao, Qian Zhang, Qin-Jing Pan, Xun Zhang, You-Lin Qiao, Fang-Hui Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Li DongDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Li ZhangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Shang-Ying HuDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Rui-Mei FengDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xue-Lian ZhaoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Qian ZhangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Qin-Jing PanDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Xun ZhangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
You-Lin QiaoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China.
Fang-Hui ZhaoDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 South Panjiayuan Lane, P.O. Box 2258, Beijing, 100021, China. zhaofangh@cicams.ac.cn.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNShanxi University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHow to best triage human papillomavirus (HPV) positive women remains controversial in an era of HPV primary screening of cervical cancer. Here, we assessed the long-term risk stratification for triaging HPV 16 positive women by standalone HPV 16 methylation and combined with E6 oncoprotein.

methodsA total of 1742 women underwent screening with HPV DNA testing, cytology, and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in 2005 and were followed for 10 years. Seventy-seven women with HPV 16 positivity determined by HPV genotyping test were examined via E6 oncoprotein detection and bisulfite pyrosequencing for quantitative methylation of L1 and LCR genes of HPV 16.

resultsThe 10-year cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or severe (CIN3+) for HPV 16 positive women was 25.3% (95% CI 14.7-37.3%), which significantly increased in women with high methylation at six sites (CpG 5602, 6650, 7034, 7461, 31, and 37) and in women with positive E6 oncoprotein. A methylation panel based on the above six sites showed a competitive risk stratification compared to cytology (HR 11.5 vs. 8.1), with a higher 10-year CIR of CIN3+ in panel positives (57.2% vs 36.8%) and comparable low risk in panel negatives (5.7% vs 4.8%).The sensitivity and specificity for accumulative CIN3+ was 85.7% (95%CI 60.1-96.0%) and 78.4% (95%CI 62.8-88.6%) for a methylation panel and 57.1% (95%CI 32.6-78.6%) and 86.5% (95%CI 72.0-94.1%) for E6 oncoprotein. The AUC values of methylation standalone and the co-testing of methylation panel and E6 oncoprotein were around 0.80, comparable to 0.68 for cytology, 0.65 for viral load, and superior to 0.52 for VIA (p < 0.05).

conclusionsOur findings indicated the promising use of HPV 16 methylation alone or combined with E6 oncoprotein for triaging HPV 16 positive women based on the long-term risk stratification ability.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdultCpG IslandsDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16HumansOncogene Proteins, ViralPapillomavirus InfectionsProspective StudiesRepressor ProteinsSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNATriageDNA, ViralE6 protein, Human papillomavirus type 16Oncogene Proteins, ViralRepressor ProteinsCervical cancerE6 oncoproteinHuman papillomavirusRisk stratificationViral methylation

Identifiers

PMID32381054
PMCPMC7204324
OpenAlexW3022950591

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.