Ajleeta Sangtani1, Chen Wang2, Amy Weaver3, Nicole L Hoppman4, Sarah E Kerr4, Alexej Abyzov2, Viji Shridhar4, Julie Staub4, Jean-Pierre A Kocher2, Jesse S Voss4, Karl C Podratz1, Nicolas Wentzensen5, John B Kisiel6, Mark E Sherman7, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez8. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 2. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 3. Department of Clinical Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 5. Hormonal and Reproductive Endocrinology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States of America. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 7. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States of America. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. Electronic address: bakkum.jamie@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether endometrial cancer (EC) can be detected in shed DNA collected with vaginal tampon by analyzing copy number, methylation markers, and mutations. METHODS: Tampons were collected prior to hysterectomy from 38 EC patients and 28 women with benign indications. Extracted tampon DNA underwent the following: 1) low-coverage whole genome sequencing (LC-WGS) to assess copy number, 2) pyrosequencing to measure percent promotor methylation of HOXA9, RASSF1, and CDH13 and 3) next generation sequencing (NGS) to identify mutations in 19 genes associated with EC identified through The Cancer Genome Atlas. Sensitivity and specificity for each test and test combinations were calculated. RESULTS: Methylation analysis yielded the highest specificities but lowest sensitivities (37-40% sensitivity; 100% specificity for HOXA9, RASSF1 and HTR1B) while mutation analysis had improved sensitivity (50% sensitivity; 83% specificity). Only one "false positive" result for copy number variants was identified among women with benign surgical indications, which was based on detection of copy number changes, and associated with a leiomyosarcoma that was only recognized at hysterectomy. Considering any of the 3 biomarker classes as a positive, resulted in a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 86%. Mutation analysis did not add sensitivity to the combination of analysis of copy number and methylation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a proof-of-principle for non-invasive yet precise detection of endometrial cancer. We propose that with improved biomarker testing, it may be possible to develop a clinically useful test for detecting EC.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether endometrial cancer (EC) can be detected in shed DNA collected with vaginal tampon by analyzing copy number, methylation markers, and mutations. METHODS: Tampons were collected prior to hysterectomy from 38 ECpatients and 28 women with benign indications. Extracted tampon DNA underwent the following: 1) low-coverage whole genome sequencing (LC-WGS) to assess copy number, 2) pyrosequencing to measure percent promotor methylation of HOXA9, RASSF1, and CDH13 and 3) next generation sequencing (NGS) to identify mutations in 19 genes associated with EC identified through The Cancer Genome Atlas. Sensitivity and specificity for each test and test combinations were calculated. RESULTS: Methylation analysis yielded the highest specificities but lowest sensitivities (37-40% sensitivity; 100% specificity for HOXA9, RASSF1 and HTR1B) while mutation analysis had improved sensitivity (50% sensitivity; 83% specificity). Only one "false positive" result for copy number variants was identified among women with benign surgical indications, which was based on detection of copy number changes, and associated with a leiomyosarcoma that was only recognized at hysterectomy. Considering any of the 3 biomarker classes as a positive, resulted in a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 86%. Mutation analysis did not add sensitivity to the combination of analysis of copy number and methylation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a proof-of-principle for non-invasive yet precise detection of endometrial cancer. We propose that with improved biomarker testing, it may be possible to develop a clinically useful test for detecting EC.
Authors: Yuning Xiong; Sean C Dowdy; Karl C Podratz; Fan Jin; John R Attewell; Norman L Eberhardt; Shi-Wen Jiang Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Benjamin Arko-Boham; Nii Ayite Aryee; Richard Michael Blay; Ewurama Dedea Ampadu Owusu; Emmanuel Ayitey Tagoe; Eshirow-Sam Doris Shackie; Ama Boatemaa Debrah; Nii Armah Adu-Aryee Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-23
Authors: J M A Pijnenborg; G C Dam-de Veen; N Kisters; B Delvoux; M van Engeland; J G Herman; P G Groothuis Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Patrick Petignat; Daniel L Faltin; Ilan Bruchim; Martin R Tramèr; Eduardo L Franco; François Coutlée Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nicolas Wentzensen; Matthew J Maurer; Kieran M Hawthorne; Jesse S Voss; Trynda N Kroneman; Abimbola O Famuyide; Amy C Clayton; Kevin C Halling; Sarah E Kerr; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Benjamin R Kipp; Andrea Mariani; Ann L Oberg; Karl C Podratz; Viji Shridhar; Mark E Sherman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Sangdi Lin; Chen Wang; Shabnam Zarei; Debra A Bell; Sarah E Kerr; George C Runger; Jean-Pierre A Kocher Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Simrit K Warring; Bijan Borah; James Moriarty; Rachel Gullerud; Maureen A Lemens; Christopher Destephano; Mark E Sherman; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Madhu Bagaria; Nicolas Wentzensen; Megan Clarke; Matthew R Hopkins; Lisa J Ahlberg; Lois J Mc Guire; Maureen A Lemens; Amy L Weaver; Ann VanOosten; Emily Shields; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Mark E Sherman; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Rianne van den Helder; Birgit M M Wever; Nienke E van Trommel; Annina P van Splunter; Constantijne H Mom; Jenneke C Kasius; Maaike C G Bleeker; Renske D M Steenbergen Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 6.551