Triage by methylation-marker testing versus cytology in women who test HPV-positive on self-collected cervicovaginal specimens (PROHTECT-3): A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

The Lancet Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 315-322

  Verhoef, Viola M J ^a   Bosgraaf, Remko P ^b   Van Kemenade, Folkert J ^a,c   Rozendaal, Lawrence ^a   Heideman, Daniëlle A M ^a   Hesselink, Albertus T ^a   Bekkers, Ruud L M ^b   Steenbergen, Renske D M ^a   Massuger, Leon F A G ^b   Melchers, Willem J G ^b   Bulten, Johan ^b   Overbeek, Lucy I H ^d   Berkhof, Johannes ^a   Snijders, Peter J F ^a   Meijer, Chris J L M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d PALGA ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CERVICOVAGINAL LAVAGE DEVICE; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DNA METHYLATION; FEMALE; GENE; GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRIC SAMPLING DEVICE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAL GENE; MIR 124 2 GENE; MOLECULAR DIAGNOSIS; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHYSICIAN; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROMOTER REGION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLING; SELF SAMPLING; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VIRUS DETECTION; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; DNA METHYLATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MICRORNAS; MIDDLE AGED; MYELIN AND LYMPHOCYTE-ASSOCIATED PROTEOLIPID PROTEINS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TRIAGE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84896739532     PISSN: 14702045     EISSN: 14745488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70019-1     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004, 364:249-256.
2. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 2003, 89:88-93.
3. Bos AB, Rebolj M, Habbema JD, van Ballegooijen M Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 2006, 119:2372-2375.
4. Gok M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study. BMJ 2010, 340:c1040.
5. Gok M, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DA, et al. Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer 2012, 130:1128-1135.
6. Giorgi RP, Marsili LM, Camilloni L, et al. The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation to cervical cancer screening in Italy: a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600). Br J Cancer 2011, 104:248-254.
7. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mesher D, et al. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer 2011, 104:915-920.
8. Schmeink CE, Bekkers RL, Massuger LF, Melchers WJ The potential role of self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening. Rev Med Virol 2011, 21:139-153.
9. Virtanen A, Nieminen P, Luostarinen T, Anttila A Self-sample HPV tests as an intervention for nonattendees of cervical cancer screening in Finland: a randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011, 20:1960-1969.
10. Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Arbyn M, et al. High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2013, 132:2223-2236.
11. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006, 119:1095-1101.
12. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100:492-501.
13. Population screening for cervical cancer 2011, Health Council of the Netherlands, Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague.
14. Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:78-88.
15. Garcia F, Barker B, Santos C, et al. Cross-sectional study of patient- and physician-collected cervical cytology and human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol 2003, 102:266-272.
16. Brink AA, Meijer CJ, Wiegerinck MA, et al. High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol 2006, 44:2518-2523.
17. Hesselink AT, Heideman DA, Steenbergen RD, et al. Combined promoter methylation analysis of CADM1 and MAL: an objective triage tool for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-positive women. Clin Cancer Res 2011, 17:2459-2465.
18. Wentzensen N, Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Wang SS Utility of methylation markers in cervical cancer early detection: appraisal of the state-of-the-science. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 112:293-299.
19. Eijsink JJ, Lendvai A, Deregowski V, et al. A four-gene methylation marker panel as triage test in high-risk human papillomavirus positive patients. Int J Cancer 2012, 130:1861-1869.
20. Overmeer RM, Louwers JA, Meijer CJ, et al. Combined CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation analysis to detect (pre-)malignant cervical lesions in high-risk HPV-positive women. Int J Cancer 2011, 129:2218-2225.
21. Eijsink JJ, Yang N, Lendvai A, et al. Detection of cervical neoplasia by DNA methylation analysis in cervico-vaginal lavages, a feasibility study. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 120:280-283.
22. Hesselink A, Heideman D, Steenbergen R, et al. Methylation marker analysis of self-sampled cervico-vaginal lavage specimens to triage high-risk HPV-positive women for colposcopy. Int J Cancer 2014, published online Jan 13. 10.1002/ijc.28723.
23. Verhoef VM, Dijkstra MG, Bosgraaf RP, et al. A second generation cervico-vaginal lavage device shows similar performance as its preceding version with respect to DNA yield and HPV DNA results. BMC Womens Health 2013, 13:21.
24. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c332.
25. Hesselink AT, Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Lorincz AT, Meijer CJ, Snijders PJ Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program. J Clin Microbiol 2006, 44:3680-3685.
26. Bulk S, van Kemenade FJ, Rozendaal L, Meijer CJ The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996. J Clin Pathol 2004, 57:388-393.
27. Wilting SM, van Boerdonk RA, Henken FE, et al. Methylation-mediated silencing and tumour suppressive function of hsa-miR-124 in cervical cancer. Mol Cancer 2010, 9:167.
28. Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 2007, 29:19-24.
29. Begg CB, Greenes RA Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983, 39:207-215.
30. Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, Solomon D, Schiffman M Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:356.
31. Lazcano-Ponce E, Lorincz AT, Cruz-Valdez A, et al. Self-collection of vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer prevention (MARCH): a community-based randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011, 378:1868-1873.
32. Jentschke M, Lange V, Soergel P, Hillemanns P Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for p16(INK4a) - a new triage test for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013, 92:160-164.
33. Lai HC, Lin YW, Huang RL, et al. Quantitative DNA methylation analysis detects cervical intraepithelial neoplasms type 3 and worse. Cancer 2010, 116:4266-4274.
34. Mirabello L, Schiffman M, Ghosh A, et al. Elevated methylation of HPV16 DNA is associated with the development of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2013, 132:1412-1422.
35. Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007, 370:1764-1772.
36. Bierkens M, Hesselink AT, Meijer CJ, et al. CADM1 and MAL promoter methylation levels in hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes increase proportional to degree and duration of underlying cervical disease. Int J Cancer 2013, 133:1293-1299.