1 ASCO 2005 Gynecologic Oncology MarkPap® Test for Cervical Cancer Screening N.S. Markovic, O. Markovic, E.S. Henderson, BioSciCon’s Cervical Cancer Study.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Impact of Gynecologic Pathology Diagnostic Errors on Patient Care Dana Marie Grzybicki MD, PhD Colleen M. Vrbin, BA Danielle Pirain, BS Stephen S.
Advertisements

Update on HPV analysis in the Aberdeen Area Delf Schmidt-Grimminger Assistant Professor The University of South Dakota.
© 2014 SynteractHCR. All rights reserved. SHARED WORK. SHARED VISION. Pitfalls in Companion Diagnostics Don't underestimate the power of conditional probabilities.
Cervical Cancer Screening Assessment in Romania- Problems, Present, Future Iuliana Apostol, MD Dr Victor Babes Foundation, Bucharest, Romania.
ASHLYN SAVAGE, MD, MSCR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Managing Abnormal Pap Smears: Incorporating.
Comparison of HPV Testing and Spectroscopy Combined with Cytology for the Detection of High- grade Cervical Neoplasia C Werner, W Griffith III, R Ashfaq,D.
Potential Roles and Limitations of Biomarkers in Alzheimer’s Disease Richard Mayeux, MD, MSc Columbia University.
Cervical Cancer: Molecular Impact of an Infectious Disease.
1 ASCO 2004 Tumor Biology & Human Genetics Pap test and a new biomarker- based technology for enhancing the visibility of abnormal cells N.S. Markovic,
Screening for Cervical Cancer
Statistics for Health Care
Interim Guidance for the Use of Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing as an Adjunct to Cervical Cytology for Screening Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 103,
(Medical) Diagnostic Testing. The situation Patient presents with symptoms, and is suspected of having some disease. Patient either has the disease or.
Bayesian Modelling for Clinical Decision Support: Cervical Cancer Screening1/31 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Magee-Womens Hospital (MWH)
CERVICAL SCREENING WITH LUVIVA MACHINE FOR EARLY DETECTION OF CERVICAL DYSPLASIA: EXPERIENCE FROM EKITI STATE, NIGERIA Sunday O. Omoya, Abimbola M. Obimakinde.
CALGB Informational Session June 22, 2007 David Hurd, MD Interim Chair Data Audit Committee.
Screening for Cervical Cancer by Visual Inspection Techniques Dr Aruna Batra VMMC & SJH.
Statistics in Screening/Diagnosis
BASIC STATISTICS: AN OXYMORON? (With a little EPI thrown in…) URVASHI VAID MD, MS AUG 2012.
Multiple Choice Questions for discussion
Cervical Cancer in California Janet Bates, MD MPH Research Program Director Research and Surveillance Program California Cancer Registry.
Condom Use Questions as Predictors of Urogenital Gonorrhea Adrianne M. Williams, MD, Philana Liang, PA-C, MPH, Renee M. Gindi, MPH, Khalil G. Ghanem, MD,
Screening for Cervical Cancer Max Brinsmead MB BS PhD May 2015.
SoftPAP® A Novel Collection Device for Cervical Cytology.
Basic statistics 11/09/13.
MEDICAL TESTING Doctor requires information Patient sample collection
Screening for cervical cancer. Screening for cervical lesions Common disease Cancer is preventable Screening is easy MUST BE PERFORMED.
Bioengineering and World Health Lecture Thirteen.
Statistics for Infection Control Practitioners Presented By: Shana O’Heron, MPH, CIC Infection Prevention and Management Associates.
International Scientific Congress for Students, Young Physicians and Pharmacists Marisiensis 2014.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم.
The OVA1 Test Improves the Preoperative Assessment of Ovarian Tumors Frederick Ueland, Chris Desimone, Leigh Seamon, Rachel Ware, Scott Goodrich, Iwona.
BIOE 301 Lecture Thirteen. Review of Lecture 12 The burden of cancer Contrasts between developed/developing world How does cancer develop? Cell transformation.
Lecture Twelve Biomedical Engineering for Global Health.
1 BioSciCon, Inc. MarkPap® Platform Technology A guide to the Web Site
Likelihood 2005/5/22. Likelihood  probability I am likelihood I am probability.
TYPE-SPECIFIC HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS IN ENDOCERVIX, VAGINA, AND PERINEUM; IMPLICATIONS FOR VAGINAL SELF- COLLECTION Robert G. Pretorius, MD, Jerome L. Belinson,
Screening of diseases Dr Zhian S Ramzi Screening 1 Dr. Zhian S Ramzi.
Enrollment and Monitoring Procedures for NCI Supported Clinical Trials Barry Anderson, MD, PhD Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program National Cancer Institute.
Screening.  “...the identification of unrecognized disease or defect by the application of tests, examinations or other procedures...”  “...sort out.
Cap.org v. 1 Gynecologic Consensus Conference Working Group 2: Prospective and Retrospective Review June 4, 2011.
Screening of genital cancers Evidence Based Presented by Dr\ Heba Nour.
Timothy Wiemken, PhD MPH Assistant Professor Division of Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Tests.
SaliMark™ OSCC Investigator Meeting Salivary Transcriptome Markers for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Detection SaliMark™ OSCC.
Results of the HTA Adequacy Study JHF Smith Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield BAC Scientific Meeting 2013.
NAAT identified chlamydial infections: Enhanced sensitivity, reduced transmissibility? Presenter: Maria Villarroel, MA Authors: Maria A. Villarroel, MA.
© 2010 Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Chapter 12 Clinical Epidemiology.
CHAPTER 3 Key Principles of Statistical Inference.
WACCPP rolling PowerPoint. INSTRUCTIONS  This PowerPoint presentation has been designed for use as a rolling backdrop at presentations or events  Before.
Cytopathology Feb
Morphologic Pap Test Findings in HPV Negative Women Age 30 Years and Older: What Information Will Be Lost with HPV Only Primary Screening? Brooke Henninger,
Lecture Fifteen Biomedical Engineering for Global Health.
Introduction to Quality Assurance. Quality assurance vs. Quality control.
Medical Diagnostic Center- L.E.M
Performance of mRNA- and DNA-based high-risk human papillomavirus assays in detection of high-grade cervical lesions ELINA VIRTANEN1, ILKKA KALLIALA2,3,
The Importance of Adequately Powered Studies
KINETICS OF BIOMARKER DEVELOPMENT
CERVICAL SCREENING Public Health England 7th November 2017
MOJA sslika.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Clinical Epidemiology
How do we delay disease progress once it has started?
Regulatory Industry Statistics Workshop 2018
کنترل کيفی در سيتولوژی سرويکوواژينال
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
MarkPap® TECHNOLOGY Focal Points BioSciCon, Inc. 12/31/2018.
Web site: BioSciCon, Inc. Business Opportunity 2006 Web site: January 15, 2019.
Patricia Butterfield & Naomi Chaytor October 18th, 2017
The performance of OncoE6TM cervical test in detecting cervical
Isabel C. Scarinci, PhD, MPH James Kendrick, MD Edward Partridge, MD
Horizon 2020 EarLy dEtection of cerVical cAncer in hard-to-reach populations: development and implementation of a new HPV test combining self-sampling.
Presentation transcript:

1 ASCO 2005 Gynecologic Oncology MarkPap® Test for Cervical Cancer Screening N.S. Markovic, O. Markovic, E.S. Henderson, BioSciCon’s Cervical Cancer Study Group*

2 *BioSciCon’s Cervical Cancer Study Group Markovic Nenad, BioSciCon, Rockville, MD Markovic Olivera, BioSciCon Shelley Parr, UMD Health Center, College Park, MD Alan Ross, Women’s Health Care Center, Bethesda, MD Rufus Rosser, Ob/Gy Off., Laurel, MD, Washington, DC Lewis Townsend, Contemporary Women Health Care Associates, Bethesda, MD Jed Gould, Ob/Gy Offices, Laurel, Bethesda, Gaithersburg, MD James Sundeen, Diagnostic Pathology Services, Clarksburg, MD William Smith, Jr. & Aruna Kumar, Pathology, Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, MD. Shiniwas Katti, consultant-statistician.

3 Background At ASCO 2001, we introduced a new biomarker- driven technology for improving the visualization of epithelial cells with abnormalities on Pap smears. The biomarker was cervical acid phosphatase labeling dysplastic cells. At ASCO 2004, we presented data of two clinical trials. This time, we are presenting results of comparing the new test with the conventional Pap smear in general population (GP).

4 MarkPap® Test MarkPap® Test (BioSciCon, Rockville, MD) is a double-staining, single slide cytological method for demonstration of cervical acid phosphatase inside Papanicolaou stained abnormal cervical cells on smears or monolayers prepared from specimens collected in solution. The test is available from the manufacturer, the Ricca Chemical Company, Arlington, TX.

5 Cervical acid phosphatase (CAP) Cervical acid phosphatase is visualized as red, granular deposit inside cells counterstained with a modified Papanicolaou technique (Fig. 1-4) The red biomarker is clearly visible on the bluish background of cervical cells. This visual characteristics reduce the probability for omission of labeled cells.

6 Fig. 1: ASC-H (x20) CAP labels 3 small abnormal cells x20 Normal CAP Negative cells

7 Fig. 2: ASC-H (x100) x100 CAP is the red marker Normal CAP negative cell

8 Fig. 3: LSIL (x100) HPV cells Red biomarker Bi-nucleus Micro- vacuolalization Dyskaruosis Koilocyte- like cells

9 Biomarker: Advantage for cervical cancer screening Cervical acid phosphatase (CAP) in cervical squamous cells is a biomarker for cervical dysplasia and HPV infection. CAP is positive in more than 99.98% cervical abnormal cells. CAP is negative in more than 99.99% normal cervical squamous cells.

10 MarkPap Utilization: Hypotheses tested If this biomarker enhances the detection of abnormal cervical cells, how this can be utilized for cervical cancer screening? If MarkPap (CAP+PAP) is superior to PAP, is the difference meaningful to replace PAP? Is the difference [MarkPap-PAP] higher than 30% in General Population (GP) of women coming for regular Pap test Ho: π e < π s + δ (0.3 π s ) H A :π e ≥ π s + δ (0.3 π s )

11 Study Design Multicenter, split-sample (case-control) study, intended: To assess the efficacy of cytoscreeners using MarkPap to improve the detection of abnormal cervical specimens, and To reduce the false negative readings, in comparison with those using the control Pap smear. Measuring endpoints: proportion, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, false negative rates.

12 Clinical Trial: GP - 1 Population N = 1,067 women age 18 and above who came to doctor’s offices for regular Pap test. Prerequisite: Confirmed eligibility Signed Informed Consent Specimens Collected 2,150 at 8 clinical sites Analyzed for control Pap smear (PAP) and new test (MarkPap) in a single contract research laboratory (DPS, Clarksburg, MD)

13 Study Management Central Research Site Design Organization Financing Monitoring for compliance Monitoring for adverse events Data acquisition Data collection Data base(s) Data management Data evaluation Adjudication Statistical analyses Study evaluation

14 Specimen processing - Laboratory Control smear Receive, register, code, label, assign to Pap test procedure. Stain with Papanicolaou stains using an automatic slide stainer MarkPap smear Receive, register, code, label, assign to MarkPap test procedure. Process for marker visualization. Stain background with Papanicolaou stains

15 Fig. 4 : Quality Control & Quality Assurance COMBO control slide containing HeLa and buccal cells HeLa CAP+ Buccal CAP[-]

16 PAP Slide screening Control slide Primary screening: Screen for epithelial cell abnormalities and report using the Bethesda System terminology. All positive/abnormal slides rescreen for QC Ten percent negative/normal slides and slides from high-risk patients send for second opinion (QC). Send reports back to clinical sites and store into the study dbase.

17 MarkPap slide screening MarkPap slide Primary screening: Screen for biomarker and for epithelial cell abnormalities. All positive/abnormal slides send for QC to pathologist All negative/normal slides send for QC to cytotechnologist Report results in the Laboratory dbase

18 Post-study handling Decoding at the end of study Using dbase information, compare results of screening test and control slides. If results are associated, record this result as “true” value. If results are discrepant, send Pap slides for adjudication. Use adjudicated results as “true” values.

19 Evaluation Validate results of the test and the control screening using “true” values. Calculate sensitivity and specificity of test and control results using “true” values as standard. Use 95%CI for improving the probability of assessment. Test hypothesis for equivalency Pe-Ps < δ (5%-50%) Test for significance of the difference using the McNemar test for comparison of proportions in paired groups

20 Results Pap smear N= 947 TP = 21 TN = 898 Se: 0.46 Sp: 0.99 MarkPap test N= 947 TP = 38 TN = 858 Se: 0.84 Sp: 0.95

21 McNemar Test* (CPT+)(PAP+) = 15(a) (CPT+)(PAP-) = 139(b) (CPT-)(PAP+) = 51(c) (CPT-)(PAP-) = 855(d) ([b-c]-1) 2 /(b+c) = (1df) 2-tailed P value= Odds ratio = %CI: LL = 2.660, UL= *QuickCalcs (

22 Predictive Values* * QuickCalcs ( PAP control Se: 46 Sp: 99 Prevalence: 7 PPV: 77 NPV: 96 FN: 3.94 MarkPap test Se: 84 Sp: 95 Prevalence: 7 PPV: 56 NPV: 99 FN: 1.25

23 Conclusion MarkPap test is superior to the PAP smear for: Detection of abnormal specimens Sensitivity of screening for cervical cancer Allows for less false negative readings

24 Acknowledgment This work was supported in part by NIH- NCI SBIR Grant No. 1 R43 CA , and No. 2 R44 CA NCI, DCP, Biomarker Research Group MdBio and Dr. Charlie Grudzinskas University of Maryland IRB

25 Correspondence Nenad Markovic, M.D., Ph.D. BioSciCon, Inc Forest Landing Circle Rockville, MD Tel Fax