Preferences and Experiences Regarding the Use of the Self-Sampling Device in hrHPV Screening for Cervical Cancer

Methylation Analysis to Detect CIN3+ in High-Risk Human Papillomavirus-Positive Self-Samples From the Population-Based Cervical Cancer Screening Program

Since 2017, a self-sampling device has been introduced to the Dutch population-based screening program to enable higher participation rates. However, routine triage cytology cannot be performed on self-sampling material. Methylation is an alternative triage method that can be performed directly on DNA extracted from self-samples. Recently, we tested a set of 15 published cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+)-specific methylation markers and found a panel of 3 markers with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 74%. In this study, we determined the sensitivity and specificity of 2 commercial assays using quantitative methylation-specific PCR. DNA from the same cohort of high-risk human papillomavirus-positive self-sampled material obtained through the population-based screening program in the North of the Netherlands from women with CIN2 or less ( Collapse

Key Words

• DNA methylation markers
• cervical cancer screening
• human papillomavirus
• quantitative methylation-specific PCR
• self-sampling

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Jolien de Waard Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Arkajyoti Bhattacharya Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Martine T de Boer Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Bettien M van Hemel Department of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Martha D Esajas Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Karin M Vermeulen Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Geertruida H de Bock Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Ed Schuuring Department of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
G Bea A Wisman Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Research Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Collapse

Identification of a methylation panel as an alternative triage to detect CIN3+ in hrHPV-positive self-samples from the population-based cervical cancer screening programme

BACKGROUND

The Dutch population-based cervical cancer screening programme (PBS) consists of primary high-risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing with cytology as triage test. In addition to cervical scraping by a general practitioner (GP), women are offered self-sampling to increase participation. Because cytological examination on self-sampled material is not feasible, collection of cervical samples from hrHPV-positive women by a GP is required. This study aims to design a methylation marker panel to detect CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) in hrHPV-positive self-samples from the Dutch PBS as an alternative triage test for cytology.

METHODS

Fifteen individual host DNA methylation markers with high sensitivity and specificity for CIN3+ were selected from literature and analysed using quantitative methylation-specific PCR (QMSP) on DNA from hrHPV-positive self-samples from 208 women with CIN2 or less (< CIN2) and 96 women with CIN3+. Diagnostic performance was determined by area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Self-samples were divided into a train and test set. Hierarchical clustering analysis to identify input methylation markers, followed by model-based recursive partitioning and robustness analysis to construct a predictive model, was applied to design the best marker panel.

RESULTS

QMSP analysis of the 15 individual methylation markers showed discriminative DNA methylation levels between < CIN2 and CIN3+ for all markers (p < 0.05). The diagnostic performance analysis for CIN3+ showed an AUC of ≥ 0.7 (p < 0.001) for nine markers. Hierarchical clustering analysis resulted in seven clusters with methylation markers with similar methylation patterns (Spearman correlation> 0.5). Decision tree modeling revealed the best and most robust panel to contain ANKRD18CP, LHX8 and EPB41L3 with an AUC of 0.83 in the training set and 0.84 in the test set. Sensitivity to detect CIN3+ was 82% in the training set and 84% in the test set, with a specificity of 74% and 71%, respectively. Furthermore, all cancer cases (n = 5) were identified.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ANKRD18CP, LHX8 and EPB41L3 revealed good diagnostic performance in real-life self-sampled material. This panel shows clinical applicability to replace cytology in women using self-sampling in the Dutch PBS programme and avoids the extra GP visit after a hrHPV-positive self-sampling test.

Qualitative factors influencing breast and cervical cancer screening in women: A scoping review

Breast and cervical are top cancers for women globally, but few studies have summarised how gender norms influence screening uptake, given sexual connotations and physical exposure. These beliefs may play a central role in decision-making, and understanding them is crucial to improving screening rates and services. This review scopes international literature for gender-based qualitative factors influencing women’s screening uptake. A systematic search of peer-reviewed English articles in PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL was conducted from inception until December 2019. Articles were included if they were about breast or cervical cancer screening, had mixed or qualitative methodology, and sampled women from the general population. 72 studies spanning 34 countries were analysed. Eight studies also included healthcare providers’ views. Our narrative thematic analysis summarised primary themes extracted from each study into first-level subthemes, then synthesising second-level and third-level themes: (I) gender socialisation of women, (II) gender inequality in society, and (III) lack of empowerment to women in making screening decisions. Women tended to face sociocultural/role-based constraints, were expected to prioritise family, and keep bodily exposure to their husbands. Women showed low awareness and had fewer opportunities for health education compared to men. Male relations were often gatekeepers to financial resources needed to pay for screening tests. Screening risked community norms about women’s or husbands’ perceived embarrassing sexual behaviours. These findings suggest that interventions targeting unhelpful stigmatising beliefs about women’s cancer screening must concurrently address community general norms, familial role-based beliefs, as well as at male relations who hold the purse-strings.