| Literature DB >> 32138766 |
Chen Chen1, Xiaojie Huang2, Wei Yin1, Muyun Peng1, Fang Wu3, Xia Wu4, Jingqun Tang1, Mingjiu Chen1, Xiang Wang1, Alicia Hulbert5, Malcolm V Brock6, Wenliang Liu7, James G Herman8, Fenglei Yu9.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We had previously developed highly sensitive DNA methylation detection to diagnose lung cancer in patients with pulmonary nodules. To validate this approach and determine clinical utility in Chinese patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy for early stage lung cancer in plasma samples. EXPERIMENTALEntities:
Keywords: Biomarker; DNA methylation; Early detection; Lung cancer; Plasma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32138766 PMCID: PMC7057485 DOI: 10.1186/s13148-020-00828-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epigenetics ISSN: 1868-7075 Impact factor: 6.551
Clinical characteristics of the patients
| Patient characteristics | Cancer group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year, mean ± SD) | 58.79 ± 9.11 | 52.45 ± 7.27 | 0.01 |
| Gender (%) | |||
| Male | 84 (51.5%) | 52 (62.7%) | 0.32 |
| Female | 79 (48.5%) | 31 (37.3%) | |
| Stage no. (%) | |||
| T1N0 | 102 (62.6%) | N/A | N/A |
| T2N0 | 61 (37.4%) | N/A | |
| Histologic characteristics no. (%) | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 139 (85.3%) | N/A | N/A |
| Squamous-cell | 22 (13.5%) | N/A | |
| NOS | 2 (1.2%) | N/A | |
| Granuloma | N/A | 35 (42.2%) | |
| Hamartoma | N/A | 10 (12.0%) | |
| Inflammation | N/A | 29 (34.9%) | |
| Fungal infection | N/A | 2 (2.4%) | |
| Other benign | N/A | 7 (8.5%) | |
| Nodule size (cm, mean ± SD) | 1.78 ± 0.67 | 1.64 ± 0.73 | 0.33 |
| 0–1.0 cm | 28 (17.2%) | 22 (26.5%) | 0.22 |
| 1.1–2.0 cm | 92 (56.4%) | 43 (51.8%) | |
| 2.1–3.0 cm | 43 (26.4%) | 18 (21.7%) | |
| Pack-year (IQR) | 38 (10–150) | 35 (0.75–90) | 0.57 |
| COPD no. (%) | 2 (1.2%) | 2 (2.4%) | 0.49 |
| FEV1 (L, mean ± SD) | 2.32 ± 0.79 | 2.65 ± 0.70 | 0.29 |
| FVC (L, mean ± SD) | 3.00 ± 1.02 | 3.42 ± 0.86 | 0.23 |
| FEV1/FVC (%, mean ± SD) | 73.52 ± 18.53 | 76.76 ± 14.31 | 0.11 |
COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in one second; FVC, forced vital capacity; IQR, interquartile range
Fig. 1Methylation profiles of the eight genes from plasma samples. This scatter plot shows the converted ΔCt methylation values in a logarithmic scale. These plots show a bimodal distribution with the lower group the values corresponding to those samples with no detectable amplification (ND). Compared with cancer and benign group, the healthy group had the lowest methylation rate in all the 8 genes. The methylation rate of CDO1, TAC1, SOX17, and HOXA7 was significantly higher in cancer group than that in benign group
Gene methylation detection in plasma samples
| Gene | Cancer ( | Control ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |||
| CDO1 | 106 | 65% | 17 | 80% | 86% | 54% |
| TAC1 | 110 | 67% | 26 | 69% | 81% | 52% |
| SOX17 | 113 | 69% | 15 | 82% | 88% | 58% |
| HOXA7 | 98 | 60% | 15 | 82% | 87% | 51% |
| HOXA9 | 101 | 62% | 42 | 49% | 71% | 40% |
| GATA4 | 68 | 42% | 35 | 58% | 66% | 34% |
| GATA5 | 72 | 44% | 38 | 54% | 65% | 33% |
| PAX5 | 67 | 41% | 37 | 55% | 64% | 32% |
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at optimal cutoffs with AUC
| Gene | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDO1 | 63% | 83% | 88% | 53% | 0.78 | 0.71–0.83 |
| TAC1 | 68% | 70% | 81% | 52% | 0.71 | 0.64–0.78 |
| SOX17 | 68% | 86% | 90% | 57% | 0.82 | 0.76–0.87 |
| HOXA7 | 55% | 87% | 89% | 50% | 0.73 | 0.67–0.80 |
| HOXA9 | 64% | 49% | 71% | 41% | 0.56 | 0.48–0.64 |
| GATA4 | 44% | 58% | 67% | 35% | 0.53 | 0.45–0.61 |
| GATA5 | 43% | 63% | 70% | 36% | 0.52 | 0.44–0.60 |
| PAX5 | 41% | 55% | 64% | 32% | 0.54 | 0.45–0.62 |
| CDO1, TAC1, SOX17 | 89% | 61% | 82% | 74% | 0.85 | 0.81–0.91 |
| CDO1, SOX17, HOXA7 | 90% | 71% | 86% | 78% | 0.88 | 0.84–0.93 |
Fig. 2Performance of gene methylation as predictor for lung cancer. The logistic regression analyses indicated that the methylation of CDO1, TAC1, SOX17, and HOXA7 were closely related to increasing of lung cancer risk. With the best adjusted odds ratio, the combination of CDO1, SOX17, and HOXA7 showed the best performance in the diagnosis of lung cancer
Fig. 3ROC curves for lung cancer detection. a ROC curves comparing the four genes with the largest areas under the curve in plasma. b ROC of the combined methylation status of CDO1, TAC1, and SOX17 from plasma with the largest area under the curve. c ROC of the combined methylation status of CDO1, SOX17, and HOXA7 from plasma with the largest area under the curve. d, e and f ROC curves assessing the accuracy of the predictions for lung cancer using gene methylation panel with clinical risk factors(age, pack-year, COPD status, nodule size, and pulmonary function values). d Plot is obtained using clinical predictors alone. e Plot is obtained using clinical predictors plus the combination of CDO1, TAC1, and SOX17. f Plot is obtained using clinical predictors plus the combination of CDO1, SOX17, and HOXA7
Performance of gene methylation panel in the prediction of early stage lung cancer
| Gene | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical predictors alone | 81% | 47% | 75% | 56% | 0.70 | 0.65–0.79 |
| Clinical predictors + CDO1, TAC1, SOX17 | 93% | 63% | 83% | 82% | 0.90 | 0.86–0.93 |
| Clinical Predictors + CDO1, SOX17, HOXA7 | 91% | 79% | 89% | 82% | 0.94 | 0.91–0.96 |
AUC, area under the curve (in the ROC curves); 95% CI, 95 % confidence interval
Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at optimal cutoffs with AUC regarding tumor size (2.1–3 cm)
| Gene | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDO1 | 67% | 89% | 94% | 53% | 0.77 | 0.64–0.90 |
| TAC1 | 65% | 72% | 85% | 46% | 0.67 | 0.51–0.83 |
| SOX17 | 67% | 90% | 94% | 53% | 0.79 | 0.68–0.90 |
| HOXA7 | 70% | 83% | 91% | 54% | 0.77 | 0.65–0.89 |
| CDO1, TAC1, SOX17 | 88% | 89% | 95% | 76% | 0.91 | 0.83–0.99 |
| CDO1, SOX17, HOXA7 | 91% | 90% | 96% | 81% | 0.95 | 0.90–1.00 |
Cancer, n = 43; control, n = 18
Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV at optimal cutoffs with AUC regarding tumor size (1.1–2 cm)
| Gene | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDO1 | 72% | 88% | 93% | 59% | 0.80 | 0.73–0.88 |
| TAC1 | 70% | 70% | 83% | 52% | 0.69 | 0.60–0.79 |
| SOX17 | 65% | 93% | 95% | 55% | 0.82 | 0.75–0.89 |
| HOXA7 | 61% | 77% | 85% | 48% | 0.72 | 0.63–0.81 |
| CDO1, TAC1, SOX17 | 73% | 93% | 96% | 62% | 0.91 | 0.87–0.97 |
| CDO1, SOX17, HOXA7 | 74% | 93% | 96% | 63% | 0.92 | 0.87–0.96 |
Cancer, n = 92; control, n = 43
Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV at optimal cutoffs with AUC regarding tumor size (0–1 cm)
| Gene | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDO1 | 82% | 46% | 66% | 67% | 0.64 | 0.49–0.80 |
| TAC1 | 61% | 78% | 78% | 61% | 0.68 | 0.56–0.81 |
| SOX17 | 61% | 77% | 77% | 61% | 0.68 | 0.56–0.80 |
| HOXA7 | 82% | 59% | 72% | 72% | 0.73 | 0.60–0.87 |
| CDO1, TAC1, SOX17 | 71% | 82% | 83% | 69% | 0.81 | 0.69–0.93 |
| CDO1, SOX17, HOXA7 | 64% | 82% | 82% | 64% | 0.75 | 0.62–0.89 |
Cancer, n = 28; control, n = 22