Complementarity between miRNA expression analysis and DNA methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes for the detection of cervical disease

Cervical screening by high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing requires additional risk stratification (triage), as most infections are transient and only a subset of hrHPV-positive women harbours clinically relevant disease. Molecular triage markers such as microRNAs (miRNAs) and DNA methylation markers are particularly promising, as they can be objectively tested directly on hrHPV-positive scrapes and cervicovaginal self-samples. Here, we evaluated the marker potential of 10 candidate miRNAs in 209 hrHPV-positive scrapes of women with underlying precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 2–3 (CIN2-3)), cancer, or without disease (CIN0/1). A predictive miRNA classifier for CIN3 detection was built using logistic regression, which was compared to and combined with DNA methylation marker FAM19A4. Markers were correlated to histology parameters and hrHPV genotype. A miRNA classifier consisting of miR-149, miR-20a, and miR-93 achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.834 for CIN3 detection, which was not significantly different to that of FAM19A4 methylation (AUC: 0.862, p = 0.591). Combining miRNA and methylation analysis demonstrated complementarity between both marker types (AUC: 0.939). While the miRNA classifier seemed more predictive for CIN2, FAM19A4 methylation was particularly high in HPV16-positive and histologically advanced CIN3, i.e. CIN3 with high lesion volume. The miRNA classifier, FAM19A4 methylation, and the miRNA/methylation combination were highest in cancer-associated scrapes. In conclusion, a panel of three miRNAs is discriminatory for CIN3 in hrHPV-positive scrapes and can complement DNA methylation analysis for the efficient detection of cervical disease. Combined analysis of the two marker types warrants further evaluation as triage strategy in hrHPV-based screening

FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis as a triage test for HPV-positive women: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a Dutch screening cohort

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the cross-sectional and long-term triage performance of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis in human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical screening. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis within a Dutch population-based HPV-positive study cohort of women aged 30–60 years (n = 979). Cross-sectional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as well as cumulative CIN3+ or cervical cancer risks after 9 and 14 years were compared for three baseline triage strategies: (1) cytology, (2) FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis and (3) combined FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation with cytology. Results: CIN3+ sensitivity of FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis was similar to that of cytology (71.3% vs 76.0%, ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05), at a lower specificity (78.3% vs 87.0%, ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.94). Combining FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation analysis with cytology resulted in a CIN3+ sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI 78.3 to 90.8) at a specificity of 69.6% (95% CI 66.5 to 72.7). Similar 9- and 14-year CIN3+ risks for baseline cytology-negative women and baseline FAM19A4/miR12

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

Objectives DNA 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. Methods We 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. Results Training 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. Conclusions FAM19A4/mir124-2 methylation analysis performs equally well in HPV-positive la

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

Background:High-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.Methods:We 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).Results:Overall FAM19A4 methylation levels betw

RAS and BRAF mutations in cell-free DNA are predictive for outcome of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with tissue-tested RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer

In metastatic colorectal cancer, RAS and BRAF mutations cause resistance to anti-EGFR therapies, such as cetuximab. Heterogeneity in RAS and BRAF mutations might explain nonresponse in a subset of patients receiving cetuximab. Analyzing mutations in plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could provide a more comprehensive overview of the mutational landscape as compared to analyses of primary and/or metastatic tumor tissue. Therefore

Recommendations for the clinical interpretation and reporting of copy number gains using gene panel NGS analysis in routine diagnostics

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel analysis on DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is increasingly used to also identify actionable copy number gains (gene amplifications) in addition to sequence variants. While guidelines for the reporting of sequence variants are available, guidance with respect to reporting copy number gains from gene-panel NGS data is limited. Here, we report on Dutch consensus recommendations obtained in the context of the national Predictive Analysis for THerapy (PATH) project, which aims to optimize and harmonize routine diagnostics in molecular pathology. We briefly d

Multicenter Comparison of Molecular Tumor Boards in The Netherlands: Definition, Composition, Methods, and Targeted Therapy Recommendations

Background: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands. Materials and Methods: MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy. Results: Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type–specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%). Conclusion: MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a “Dutch MTB model” for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow. Implications for Practice: Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing

Primary hrHPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: How to manage screen-positive women? a POBASCAM trial substudy

Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for cervical (pre)-cancerous lesions. Therefore, triage of hrHPV-positive women is needed in cervical cancer screening. Methods: A cohort of 1,100 hrHPV-positive women, from a population-based screening trial (POBASCAM: n = 44,938; 29-61 years), was used to evaluate 10 triage strategies, involving testing at baseline and six months with combinations of cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and/or repeat hrHPV testing. Clinical endpoint was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected within four years; results were adjusted for women not attending repeat testing. A triage strategy was considered acceptable, when the probability of no CIN3+ after negative triage (negative predictive value, NPV) was at least 98%, and the CIN3+ risk after positive triage (positive predictive value, PPV) was at least 20%. Results: Triage at baseline with cytology only yielded an NPV of 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92.0- 96.0] and a PPV of 39.7% (95% CI, 34.0-45.6). An increase in NPV, against a modest decrease in PPV, was obtained by triagin

Evaluation of the eighth TNM classification on p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in the Netherlands and the importance of additional HPV DNA testing

Background: Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) are traditionally caused by smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. However, in the last decades high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infections play an increasingly important role in tumorigenesis. HPV-driven OPSCCs are known to have a more favorable prognosis, which has led to important and marked changes in the recently released TNM-8. In this 8th edition, OPSCCs are divided based on p16 immunostaining, with p16 overexpression as surrogate marker for the presence of HPV. The aims of this study are to evaluate TNM-8 on a Dutch consecutive cohort of patients with p16-positive OPSCC and to determine the relevance of additional HPV DNA testing. Patients and methods: All OPSCC patients without distant metastases at diagnosis and treated with curative intent at VU University Medical Center (2000-2015) and Erasmus Medical Center (2000-2006) were included (N=1204). HPV status was determined by p16 immunostaining followed by HPV DNA PCR on the p16-immunopositive cases. We compared TNM-7 and TNM-8 using the Harrell's C index. Results: In total, 388 of 1204 (32.2%) patients were p16-immunopositive. In these patients, TNM-8 had a markedly better predictive prognostic power than TNM-7 (Harrell's C index 0.63 versus 0.53). Of the 388 p16-positive OPSCCs, 48 tumors (12.4%) were HPV DNA-negative. This subgroup had distinct demographic, clinical and morphologic characteristics and showed a significantly worse five-year overall survival compared with the HPV DNA-positive tumors (P < 0.001). Conclusions: TNM-8 has a better predictive prognostic power than TNM-7 in patients with p16-positive OPSCC. However, within p16-positive OPSCCs, there is an HPV DNA-negative subgroup with distinct features and a worse overall survival, indicating the importance to perform additional HPV DNA testing when predicting prognosis and particularly for selecting patients for de-intensified treatment regimens