HPV AND DNA METHYLATION TESTING IN URINE FOR CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA AND CERVICAL CANCER DETECTION

Purpose: Biomarker detection in urine offers a potential solution to increase effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs by attracting nonresponders. In this prospective study, the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA and the performance of DNA methylation analysis was determined for the detection of cervical cancer and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) in urine, and compared with paired cervicovaginal self-samples and clinician-taken cervical scrapes. Experimental Design: A total of 587 samples were included from 113 women with cervical cancer, 92 women with CIN2/3, and 64 controls. Samples were tested for hrHPV DNA and five methylation markers. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and leave-one-out cross-validation were used to determine the methylation marker performance for CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3þ) detection in urine. Agreement between samples was determined using Cohen kappa statistics and the Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: HrHPV presence was high in all sample types, 79% to 92%. Methylation levels of all markers in urine significantly increased with increasing severity of disease. The optimal marker panel (ASCL1/LHX8) resulted in an AUC of 0.84 for CIN3þ detection in urine, corresponding to an 86% sensitivity at a 70% predefined specificity. At this threshold 96% (109/113) of cervical cancers, 68% (46/64) of CIN3, and 58% (14/24) of CIN2 were detected. Between paired samples, a strong agreement for HPV16/18 genotyping and a fair to strong correlation for methylation was found. Conclusions: HrHPV DNA and DNA methylation testing in urine offers a promising solution to detect cervical cancer and CIN2/3 lesions, especially for women currently unreached by conventional screening methods

HPV and DNA Methylation Testing in Urine for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cervical Cancer Detection

Purpose: Biomarker detection in urine offers a potential solution to increase effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs by attracting nonresponders. In this prospective study, the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA and the performance of DNA methylation analysis was determined for the detection of cervical cancer and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) in urine, and compared with paired cervicovaginal self-samples and clinician-taken cervical scrapes. Experimental Design: A total of 587 samples were included from 113 women with cervical cancer, 92 women with CIN2/3, and 64 controls. Samples were tested for hrHPV DNA and five methylation markers. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and leave-one-out cross-validation were used to determine the methylation marker performance for CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3þ) detection in urine. Agreement between samples was determined using Cohen kappa statistics and the Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: HrHPV presence was high in all sample types, 79% to 92%. Methylation levels of all markers in urine significantly increased with increasing severity of disease. The optimal marker panel (ASCL1/LHX8) resulted in an AUC of 0.84 for CIN3þ detection in urine, corresponding to an 86% sensitivity at a 70% predefined specificity. At this threshold 96% (109/113) of cervical cancers, 68% (46/64) of CIN3, and 58% (14/24) of CIN2 were detected. Between paired samples, a strong agreement for HPV16/18 genotyping and a fair to strong correlation for methylation was found. Conclusions: HrHPV DNA and DNA methylation testing in urine offers a promising solution to detect cervical cancer and CIN2/3 lesions, especially for women currently unreached by conventional screening methods

Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass

OBJECTIVES: In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment. METHODS: Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies

Psychological impact of referral to an oncology hospital on patients with an ovarian mass

Objectives In patients with an ovarian mass, a risk of malignancy assessment is used to decide whether referral to an oncology hospital is indicated. Risk assessment strategies do not perform optimally, resulting in either referral of patients with a benign mass or patients with a malignant mass not being referred. This process may affect the psychological well-being of patients. We evaluated cancer-specific distress during work-up for an ovarian mass, and patients' perceptions during work-up, referral, and treatment. Methods Patients with an ovarian mass scheduled for surgery were enrolled. Using questionnaires we measured (1) cancer-specific distress using the cancer worry scale, (2) patients' preferences regarding referral (evaluated pre-operatively), and (3) patients' experiences with work-up and treatment (evaluated post-operatively). A cancer worry scale score of ≥14 was considered as clinically significant cancer-specific distress. Results A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 220 (53%) were treated at a general hospital and 197 (47%) at an oncology hospital. Overall, 57% had a cancer worry scale score of ≥14 and this was higher in referred patients (69%) than in patients treated at a general hospital (43%). 53% of the patients stated that the cancer risk should not be higher than 25% to undergo surgery at a general hospital. 96% of all patients were satisfied with the overall work-up and treatment. No difference in satisfaction was observed between patients correctly (not) referred and patients incorrectly (not) referred. Conclusions Relatively many patients with an ovarian mass experienced high cancer-specific distress during work-up. Nevertheless, patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the final diagnosis and the location of treatment. Moreover, patients preferred to be referred even if there was only a relatively low probability of having ovarian cancer. Patients' preferences should be taken into account when deciding on optimal cut-offs for risk assessment strategies