Charlotte Vavourakis

The cervico‐vaginal DNA methylation WID ‐ qEC test: An epigenetic marker associated with ovarian cancer in the absence of endometrial and cervical cancer

Abstract The DNA methylation‐based WID‐qEC test, applied to cervico‐vaginal samples, has been validated for the accurate detection of endometrial and cervical cancers. However, a small proportion of women test positive despite the absence of these cancers. The aim of this study was to explore the biological and clinical characteristics associated with such WID‐qEC‐positive cases to inform potential follow‐up strategies. We analyzed 1269 cervico‐vaginal samples from women without endometrial or cervical cancer, including healthy controls ( n  = 624), women with benign gynecological conditions ( n  = 324), and ovarian cancer cases ( n  = 321). Of the 80 WID‐qEC‐positive results, 43 (54%) were from women with ovarian cancer. WID‐qEC positivity was associated with the presence of ovarian cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.93; 95% CI 1.75–4.95) and with a higher number of lifetime ovulatory cycles (adjusted OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.06–7.50), a known ovarian cancer risk factor. Both associations were independent of age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy usage, or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Our findings suggest that in the absence of endometrial or cervical cancer, WID‐qEC positivity may indicate an elevated risk or presence of ovarian cancer. While the standalone positive predictive value (PPV) for ovarian cancer detection remains low in the general population, we outline how WID‐qEC could be used in a two‐step triage approach. In women presenting with abnormal bleeding, combining WID‐qEC positivity with a highly specific plasma‐based cell‐free DNA methylation test (e.g., with 60%–80% sensitivity and ~98.4% specificity) could theoretically yield a PPV of around 30%–40%. This hypothetical modeling is intended solely to illustrate how WID‐qEC positivity might inform future triage research, rather than to propose a clinical diagnostic algorithm.

High performance of the DNA methylation‐based WID‐qEC test for detecting uterine cancers independent of sampling modalities

AbstractEndometrial cancer (EC) is the most prevalent gynaecological cancer in high‐income countries and its incidence is continuing to rise sharply. Simple and objective tools to reliably detect women with EC are urgently needed. We recently developed and validated the DNA methylation (DNAme)‐based women's cancer risk identification—quantitative polymerase chain reaction test for endometrial cancer (WID‐qEC) test that could address this need. Here, we demonstrate that the stability of the WID‐qEC test remains consistent regardless of: (i) the cervicovaginal collection device and sample media used (Cervex brush and PreservCyt or FLOQSwab and eNAT), (ii) the collector of the specimen (gynaecologist‐ or patient‐based), and (iii) the precise sampling site (cervical, cervicovaginal and vaginal). Furthermore, we demonstrate sample stability in eNAT medium for 7 days at room temperature, greatly facilitating the implementation of the test into diagnostic laboratory workflows. When applying FLOQSwabs (Copan) in combination with the eNAT (Copan) sample collection media, the sensitivity and specificity of the WID‐qEC test to detect uterine (i.e., endometrial and cervical) cancers in gynaecologist‐taken samples was 92.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 75.0%–98.8%) and 98.6% (95% CI = 91.7%–99.9%), respectively, whilst the sensitivity and specificity in patient collected self‐samples was 75.0% (95% CI = 47.4%–91.7%) and 100.0% (95% CI = 93.9%–100.0%), respectively. Taken together these data confirm the robustness and clinical potential of the WID‐qEC test.

Cervical cancer screening using DNA methylation triage in a real-world population

AbstractCervical cancer (CC) screening in women comprises human papillomavirus (HPV) testing followed by cytology triage of positive cases. Drawbacks, including cytology’s low reproducibility and requirement for short screening intervals, raise the need for alternative triage methods. Here we used an innovative triage technique, the WID-qCIN test, to assess the DNA methylation of human genes DPP6, RALYL and GSX1 in a real-life cohort of 28,017 women aged ≥30 years who attended CC screening in Stockholm between January and March 2017. In the analysis of all 2,377 HPV-positive samples, a combination of WID-qCIN (with a predefined threshold) and HPV16 and/or HPV18 (HPV16/18) detected 93.4% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and 100% of invasive CCs. The WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 combination predicted 69.4% of incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse compared with 18.2% predicted by cytology. Cytology or WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 triage would require 4.1 and 2.4 colposcopy referrals to detect one cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, respectively, during the 6 year period. These findings support the use of WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 as an improved triage strategy for HPV-positive women.

The WID‐qEC test: Performance in a hospital‐based cohort and feasibility to detect endometrial and cervical cancers

AbstractThe majority of endometrial and cervical cancers present with abnormal vaginal bleeding but only a small proportion of women suffering from vaginal bleeding actually have such a cancer. A simple, operator‐independent and accurate test to correctly identify women presenting with abnormal bleeding as a consequence of endometrial or cervical cancer is urgently required. We have recently developed and validated the WID‐qEC test, which assesses DNA methylation of ZSCAN12 and GYPC via real‐time PCR, to triage women with symptoms suggestive of endometrial cancer using ThinPrep‐based liquid cytology samples. Here, we investigated whether the WID‐qEC test can additionally identify women with cervical cancer. Moreover, we evaluate the test's applicability in a SurePath‐based hospital‐cohort by comparing its ability to detect endometrial and cervical cancer to cytology. In a set of 23 cervical cancer cases and 28 matched controls the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) is 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97‐1.00) with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 92.9%, respectively. Amongst the hospital‐cohort (n = 330), the ROC AUC is 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1) with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 82.5% for the WID‐qEC test, respectively, and 33.3% and 96.9% for cytology (considering PAP IV/V as positive). Our data suggest that the WID‐qEC test detects both endometrial and cervical cancer with high accuracy.