4.6 Article

PAX1/SOX1 DNA methylation and cervical neoplasia detection: a Taiwanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (TGOG) study

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 1062-1074

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.253

关键词

Cervical cancer screening; DNA methylation; PAX1; SOX1

类别

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC98-3114-P-016-001-Y, NSC99-3113-P-016-001, NSC102-2628-B-038-010-MY3, NSC 103-2325-B-195-002]
  2. iSTAT Healthcare Consulting Co., Ltd [NSC 103-2325-B-195-002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to determine whether PAX1/SOX1 methylation could be translated to clinical practice for cervical neoplasia detection when used alone and in combination with current cytology-based Pap screening. We conducted a multicenter case-control study in 11 medical centers in Taiwan from December 2009 to November 2010. Six hundred seventy-six patients were included in the analysis, including 330 in the training set and 346 in the testing set. Multiplex quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed with a TaqMan probe system using a LightCycler 480 Real-Time PCR System (Roche). The level of human papilloma virus (HPV) was analyzed using a Hybrid Capture 2 system (Digene). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to obtain the best cutoff values from the training data set. The sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies were validated in the testing set. The sensitivities for methylated ((m)) PAX1(m) and SOX1(m) and HPV testing for detecting CIN3(+) lesions were 0.64, 0.71, and 0.89, and the specificities were 0.91, 0.77, and 0.68, respectively. Combined parallel testing of PAX1(m) / SOX1(m) tests with Pap smearing showed superior specificity (0.84/0.71 vs. 0.66, respectively) and similar sensitivity (0.93/0.96 vs. 0.97) to the combination of Pap smear results and HPV testing. Thus, combined parallel testing using Pap smears and PAX1 or SOX1 methylation tests may provide better performance than a combination of Pap smears with HPV testing in detection for cervical neoplasia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据