子宫内膜癌
医学
巴氏试验
妇科
宫颈癌
肿瘤科
癌症
内科学
宫颈癌筛查
作者
Ojone Illah,Malcolm Scott,Elisa Redl,James E. Barrett,Lena Schreiberhuber,Chiara Herzog,Charlotte D. Vavourakis,Allison Jones,Iona Evans,Daniel Reisel,Dhivya Chandrasekaran,Kostas Doufekas,Radha Graham,Ioannis C Kotsopoulos,Nicola MacDonald,Rupali Arora,Adeola Olaitan,Adam N. Rosenthal,Martin Widschwendter
摘要
Abstract Endometrial 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.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI