Utility of Epstein-Barr Virus DNA in Nasopharynx Swabs as a Reflex Test to Triage Seropositive Individuals in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Screening Programs.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA detection in the nasopharynx is considered a biomarker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We evaluated its performance as a reflex test to triage EBV seropositives within an NPC screening program in China. METHODS: The study population was embedded within an ongoing NPC screening trial and included 1111 participants who screened positive for anti-EBV VCA (antibodies against EBV capsid antigens)/EBNA1 (EBV nuclear antigen1)-IgA antibodies (of 18 237 screened). Nasopharynx swabs were collected/tested for EBNA1 gene EBV DNA load. We evaluated performance of EBV DNA in the nasopharynx swab as a reflex test to triage EBV serological high-risk (those referred to endoscopy/MRI) and medium-risk (those referred to accelerated screening) individuals. RESULTS: By the end of 2019, we detected 20 NPC cases from 317 serological high-risk individuals and 4 NPC cases from 794 medium-risk individuals. When used to triage serological high-risk individuals, nasopharynx swab EBV DNA was detected in 19/20 cases (positivity rate among cases 95.0%; 95% CI, 75.1%-99.9%), with a referral rate of 63.4% (201/317, 95% CI, 57.8%-68.7%) and NPC detection rate among positives of 9.5% (19/201, 95% CI, 5.8%-14.4%). The performance of an algorithm that combined serology with triage of serology high-risk individuals using EBV DNA testing yielded a sensitivity of 72.4% (95% CI, 3.0%-81.4%) and specificity of 97.6% (95% CI, 97.2%-97.9%). When used to triage EBV serological medium-risk individuals, the positivity rate among cases was 75.0% (95% CI, 19.4%-99.4%), with a referral rate of 61.8% (95% CI, 58.4%-65.2%) and NPC detection rate among positives of 0.6% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Nasopharynx swab EBV DNA showed promise as a reflex test to triage serology high-risk individuals, reducing referral by ca. 40% with little reduction in sensitivity compared to a serology-only screening program.