Evidence mapPaperPMID 41609407Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026

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

Elisa Redl, Chiara Herzog, Charlotte Vavourakis, James Barrett, Allison Jones, Iona Evans, Daniel Reisel, Ranjit Manchanda, Line Bjørge, Michal Zikan and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Elisa RedlEuropean Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6540-8443
Chiara HerzogEuropean Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1572-498X
Charlotte VavourakisEuropean Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5027-2309
James BarrettEuropean Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1274-327X
Allison JonesDepartment of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Iona EvansDepartment of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel ReiselDepartment of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Ranjit ManchandaDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Line BjørgeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Michal ZikanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bulovka University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
David CibulaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General University Hospital in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Czech Republic.
Twana AlkasaliasDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Angelique Flöter RådestadDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristina Gemzell-DanielssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Louis DubeauDepartment of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6736-4907
Nicola MacDonaldDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Davor JurkovicDepartment of Women's Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Martin WidschwendterEuropean Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7778-8380

Funding

European Research Council 742432Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 634570Land TirolStandortagentur TirolThe Eve Appeal
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorDNA MethylationOvarian NeoplasmsAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesCervix UteriEndometrial NeoplasmsEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleHumansMiddle AgedUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginaBiomarkers, Tumorcervico‐vaginal sample; WID‐qEC testDNA methylationovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID41609407
PMCPMC12996746

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.