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. 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. 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. FAM19A4/mir124-2 methylation analysis performs equally well in HPV-positive lavage- and brush self-samples to identify women with CIN3+. In combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, significantly higher CIN3+ sensitivities are obtained, at decreased specificity.

Background: Excisional procedures of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) may increase the risk of preterm birth. It is unknown whether this increased risk is due to the excision procedure itself, to the underlying CIN, or to secondary risk factors that are associated with both preterm birth and CIN. The aim of this study is to assess the risk of spontaneous preterm birth in women with treated and untreated CIN and examine possible associations by making a distinction between the excised volume of cervical tissue and having cervical disease.Methods and findings: This Dutch population-based observational cohort study identified women aged 29 to 41 years with CIN between 2005 and 2015 from the Dutch pathology registry (PALGA) and frequency matched them with a control group without any cervical abnormality based on age at and year of pathology outcome (i.e., CIN or normal cytology) and urbanization (<100,000 inhabitants or ≥100,000 inhabitants). All their 45,259 subsequent singleton pregnancies with a gestational age ≥16 weeks between 2010 and 2017 were identified from the Dutch perinatal database (Perined). Nineteen potential confounders for preterm birth were identified. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for preterm birth comparing the 3 different groups of women: (1) women without CIN diagnosis; (2) women with untreated CIN; and (3) women with treated CIN prior to each childbirth.In total, 29,907, 5,940, and 9,412 pregnancies were included in the control, untreated CIN, and treated CIN group, respectively. The control group showed a 4.8% (1,002/20,969) proportion of spontaneous preterm birth, which increased to 6.9% (271/3,940) in the untreated CIN group, 9.5% (600/6,315) in the treated CIN group, and 15.6% (50/321) in the group with multiple treatments. Women with untreated CIN had a 1.38 times greater odds of preterm birth compared to women without CIN (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.60;P< 0.001). For women with treated CIN, these odds 2.07 times increased compared to the control group (95% CI 1.85 to 2.33;P< 0.001). Treated women had a 1.51 times increased odds of preterm birth compared to women with untreated CIN (95% CI 1.29 to 1.76;P< 0.001). Independent from cervical disease, a volume excised from the cervix of 0.5 to 0.9 cc increased the odds of preterm birth 2.20 times (37/379 versus 1,002/20,969; 95% CI 1.52 to 3.20;P< 0.001). These odds further increased 3.13 times and 5.93 times for women with an excised volume of 4 to 8.9 cc (90/724 versus 1,002/20,969; 95% CI 2.44 to 4.01;P< 0.001) and ≥9 cc (30/139 versus 1,002/20,969; 95% CI 3.86 to 9.13;P< 0.001), respectively. Limitations of the study include the retrospective nature, lack of sufficient information to calculate odds of preterm birth <24 weeks, and that the excised volume could only be calculated for a select group of women.Conclusions: In this study, we observed a strong correlation between preterm birth and a volume of ≥0.5 cc excised cervical tissue, regardless of the severity of CIN. Caution should be taken when performing excisional treatment in women of reproductive age as well as prudence in case of multiple biopsies. Fertile women with a history of performing multiple biopsies or excisional treatment for CIN may benefit from close surveillance during pregnancy.

To estimate the risk of cervical cancer in women with a history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 and to review the compliance with post-treatment follow-up. A population-based retrospective cohort study including 80,442 women with a median follow-up of 15.8 years, and 1,278,297 person years. Women with CIN3 between 1990 and 2010 were identified from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and linked to the general female population from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cases of recurrent CIN3 and cervical cancer, defined as occurrence minimally two years post-treatment, were identified until 2016. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for the risk of cervical cancer. 1554 women (1.9%) developed recurrent CIN3 and 397 women (0.5%) cervical cancer. Women with CIN3 were associated with a twofold increased risk of cervical cancer (SIR 2.29; 95%CI 2.07-2.52) compared with the general female population. Women aged ≥50 years during CIN3 diagnosis had a sevenfold and women with recurrent CIN3 a ninefold increased risk of developing cervical cancer. The increased risk up to 20 years of follow-up seems to be mostly attributable to ageing. 37.0% of women who developed cervical cancer after CIN3 did not complete the advised post-treatment follow-up. Women with CIN3 have a long-lasting twofold increased risk of developing cervical cancer, even when they complete the post-treatment follow-up and adhere to the regular screening program. This risk increases with CIN3 diagnosis at older age, further ageing during follow-up and in women with recurrent CIN3. Studies on optimizing follow-up strategies are warranted.

Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is paramount for shared and evidence based decision-making. Since an overview of cervical cancer HRQoL tools and their validity appears to be lacking, we performed a systematic review on usage of disease specific HRQoL instruments in cervical cancer patients and their psychometric properties to identify the most suitable cervical cancer specific HRQoL tool. We searched Pubmed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception up to 18 October 2016 for studies on quality of life in cervical cancer patients. Data extraction and HRQoL identification was performed by two independent reviewers. Validation studies of the identified cervical cancer specific HRQoL tools were retrieved and assessed on psychometric properties using the COSMIN checklist. All used cervical cancer specific HRQoL instruments were scored and ranked according to their psychometric properties. We included 156 studies (20,690 patients) and identified 31 HRQoL tools. The EORTC QLQ-CX24 (35 studies; 5,556 patients) and FACT-Cx (22 studies; 4,224 patients) were the only cervical cancer specific tools. The EORTC QLQ-CX24 had 4 out of 9 positive rated psychometric properties; internal consistency, content and construct validity, and agreement. Criterion validity, reliability, and interpretability scored doubtful. Responsiveness and floor- and ceiling effects were not reported. The FACT-Cx had 2 out of 9 positive rated psychometric properties; internal consistency and agreement. Content validity, reliability, and interpretability scored doubtful while criterion and construct validity scored negative. Responsiveness and floor- and ceiling effects were not reported. The validity of the often used EORTC QLQ-CX24 questionnaire for cervical cancer patients remains uncertain as 5 out of 9 psychometric properties were doubtful or not reported in current literature. Cervical cancer specific HRQoL tools should therefore always be used in conjunction with validated generic cancer HRQoL tools until proper validity has been proven, or a more valid tool has been developed.

Methylation of host‐cell deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been proposed as a promising biomarker for triage of high‐risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) positive women at screening. Our study aims to validate recently identified host‐cell DNA methylation markers for triage in an hrHPV‐positive cohort derived from primary HPV‐based cervical screening in The Netherlands. Methylation markers ASCL1, LHX8, ST6GALNAC5, GHSR, ZIC1 and SST were evaluated relative to the ACTB reference gene by multiplex quantitative methylation‐specific PCR (qMSP) in clinician‐collected cervical samples (n = 715) from hrHPV‐positive women (age 29‐60 years), who were enrolled in the Dutch IMPROVE screening trial (NTR5078). Primary clinical end‐point was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or cancer (CIN3+). The single‐marker and bi‐marker methylation classifiers developed for CIN3 detection in a previous series of hrHPV‐positive clinician‐collected cervical samples were applied. The diagnostic accuracy was visualised using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and assessed through area under the ROC curve (AUC). The performance of the methylation markers to detect CIN3+ was determined using the predefined threshold calibrated at 70% clinical specificity. Individual methylation makers showed good performance for CIN3+ detection, with highest AUC for ASCL1 (0.844) and LHX8 (0.830). Combined as a bi‐marker panel with predefined threshold, ASCL1/LHX8 yielded a CIN3+ sensitivity of 76.9% (70/91; 95% CI 68.3‐85.6%) at a specificity of 74.5% (465/624; 95% CI 71.1‐77.9%). In conclusion, our study shows that the individual host‐cell DNA methylation classifiers and the bi‐marker panel ASCL1/LHX8 have clinical utility for the detection of CIN3+ in hrHPV‐positive women invited for routine screening.