Accuracy of GynTect® Methylation Markers to Detect Recurrent Disease in Patients Treated for CIN3: A Proof-of-Concept Case-Control Study

Post-treatment follow-up in women with CIN3 is mandatory due to relapse in up to 15% of patients within 2 years. Standard follow-up care based on hrHPV-DNA/cytology co-testing has high sensitivity but limited specificity. The aim of our proof-of-concept case-control study was to evaluate the performance of the methylation test GynTect<sup>®</sup> for the detection of recurrent CIN2/3 during follow-up. Residual clinical material from a recent, prospective, multicenter, observational study was available for further analysis. We studied a sample of 17 cases with recurrent CIN2/3 diagnosed within 24 months of follow-up and 31 controls without recurrence. DNA from cervical scrapes at baseline (immediately before CIN3 surgery) and up to three follow-up visits were analyzed for hrHPV and GynTect<sup>®</sup> methylation status. Cytology data were available from the previous study. Overall, 12 cases and 21 controls were GynTect-positive at baseline. In these subgroups, single test sensitivity at first follow-up was 67% (95% CI 39-87%) for GynTect<sup>®</sup> compared to 83% (95% CI 55-96%) for hrHPV (<i>p</i> = 0.50). Single test specificity was significantly higher for GynTect<sup>®</sup> (90%, 95% CI 71-98% vs. 62%, 95% CI 40-80%) (<i>p</i> = 0.03). In a co-testing setting, both hrHPV/cytology and GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology detected all recurrences. Specificity for GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology was higher than for hrHPV/cytology, but this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, for initially GynTect-positive patients, both hrHPV and GynTect<sup>®</sup> tests detected recurrent disease with similar sensitivity, but the GynTect<sup>®</sup> assay has a higher specificity. Incident hrHPV infection and/or persisting multifocal hrHPV infections without clinical disease are most likely responsible for the poorer specificity of the hrHPV test. A future prospective validation study will have to show whether GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology co-testing can outperform hrHPV/cytology co-testing in post-treatment surveillance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16173022
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy of GynTect® Methylation Markers to Detect Recurrent Disease in Patients Treated for CIN3: A Proof-of-Concept Case-Control Study

Gerd Böhmer, Ingo B. Runnebaum, Monika Hampl, Sarah Scherbring et al.
1 citations
Cancers
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
1.11
article

Accuracy of GynTect® Methylation Markers to Detect Recurrent Disease in Patients Treated for CIN3: A Proof-of-Concept Case-Control Study

Gerd Böhmer, Ingo B. Runnebaum, Monika Hampl, Sarah Scherbring, Grit Mehlhorn, Axel Petzold, Cornelia Scheungraber, Martina Schmitz, Heike Hoyer, Ingke Hagemann, Matthias Dürst, Kristina Wunsch, Peter Hillemanns, Linn Wölber
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Post-treatment follow-up in women with CIN3 is mandatory due to relapse in up to 15% of patients within 2 years. Standard follow-up care based on hrHPV-DNA/cytology co-testing has high sensitivity but limited specificity. The aim of our proof-of-concept case-control study was to evaluate the performance of the methylation test GynTect<sup>®</sup> for the detection of recurrent CIN2/3 during follow-up. Residual clinical material from a recent, prospective, multicenter, observational study was available for further analysis. We studied a sample of 17 cases with recurrent CIN2/3 diagnosed within 24 months of follow-up and 31 controls without recurrence. DNA from cervical scrapes at baseline (immediately before CIN3 surgery) and up to three follow-up visits were analyzed for hrHPV and GynTect<sup>®</sup> methylation status. Cytology data were available from the previous study. Overall, 12 cases and 21 controls were GynTect-positive at baseline. In these subgroups, single test sensitivity at first follow-up was 67% (95% CI 39-87%) for GynTect<sup>®</sup> compared to 83% (95% CI 55-96%) for hrHPV (<i>p</i> = 0.50). Single test specificity was significantly higher for GynTect<sup>®</sup> (90%, 95% CI 71-98% vs. 62%, 95% CI 40-80%) (<i>p</i> = 0.03). In a co-testing setting, both hrHPV/cytology and GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology detected all recurrences. Specificity for GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology was higher than for hrHPV/cytology, but this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, for initially GynTect-positive patients, both hrHPV and GynTect<sup>®</sup> tests detected recurrent disease with similar sensitivity, but the GynTect<sup>®</sup> assay has a higher specificity. Incident hrHPV infection and/or persisting multifocal hrHPV infections without clinical disease are most likely responsible for the poorer specificity of the hrHPV test. A future prospective validation study will have to show whether GynTect<sup>®</sup>/cytology co-testing can outperform hrHPV/cytology co-testing in post-treatment surveillance.

CancersVol. 16(17)
Universität Hamburg (DE), Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE), Düsseldorf University Hospital (DE), Klinik für Frauenheilkunde (DE), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE), Klinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Fortpflanzungsmedizin (DE), Jena University Hospital (DE), oncgnostics (Germany) (DE), Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
1.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.