| Literature DB >> 32252299 |
Anouk E Hentschel1, Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen1, Judith Bosschieter1, Annina P van Splunter2, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte3, J Patrick van der Voorn2, Loes I Segerink4, R Jeroen A van Moorselaar1, Renske D M Steenbergen2.
Abstract
DNA methylation analysis of full void urine and urine pellet seems promising for bladder cancer (BC) detection and surveillance. Urinary cell-free DNA from urine supernatant is now gaining interest for other molecular tests in BC. This study aims to evaluate which urine fraction is preferred for BC diagnosis using methylation markers: full void urine, urine pellet or supernatant. Methylation levels of nine markers were determined in the three urine fractions and correlated with their respective tumor tissues in BC patients and compared to controls. For all markers and marker panel GHSR/MAL, diagnostic performance was determined by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the respective receiver operating characteristic curves. For most of the markers, there was a significant correlation between the methylation levels in each of the urine fractions and the matched tumor tissues. Urine pellet was the most representative fraction. Generally, AUCs for BC diagnosis were comparable among the fractions. The highest AUC was obtained for GHSR/MAL in urine pellet: AUC 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.00), corresponding to a sensitivity of 78.6% and a specificity of 91.7%. Our results demonstrate that cellular and cell-free DNA in urine can be used for BC diagnosis by urinary methylation analysis. Based on our comparative analysis and for practical reasons, we recommend the use of urine pellet.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; methylation; molecular diagnostics; urinary bladder neoplasms; urine analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32252299 PMCID: PMC7226114 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12040859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Baseline characteristics of all included patients.
| Characteristic | Bladder Cancer ( | Benign Hematuria ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, |
| ||
| Male | 11 (78.6) | 5 (41.3) | |
| Female | 3 (21.4) | 7 (58.3) | |
| Age, yr, | 70.0 (62.5–79.3) | 58.5 (49.3–70.8) |
|
| WHO 1973 grade, | - | ||
| Grade 1 | 2 (14.3) | - | |
| Grade 2 | 7 (50.0) | - | |
| Grade 3 | 5 (35.7) | - | |
| WHO 2004 grade, | - | ||
| Low-grade | 8 (57.1) | - | |
| High-grade | 6 (42.9) | - | |
| Stage, | - | ||
| Ta | 9 (64.3) | - | |
| Tis | 1 (7.1) | - | |
| T1 | 2 (14.3) | - | |
| T3b | 2 (14.3) | - | |
| Primary/recurrence, | - | ||
| Primary | 8 (57.1) | - | |
| Recurrence | 6 (42.9) | - | |
| Number of tumors, | - | ||
| Solitary | 8 (57.1) | - | |
| Multiple | 6 (42.9) | - | |
| Tumor size, | - | ||
| <3 cm | 11 (78.6) | - | |
| ≥3 cm | 3 (21.4) | - | |
| CIS, | - | ||
| No | 12 (85.7) | - | |
| Yes | 2 (14.3) | - |
Abbreviations: yr = year; IQR = interquartile range; WHO = World Health Organization; CIS = carcinoma in situ.
Correlation between the methylation levels in the urine fractions and matched tumor tissues of the bladder cancer patients (n = 14). Spearman’s correlation was used to calculate the correlation coefficients and corresponding p-values.
| Spearman’s Correlation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Markers | Full Void vs. Tissue | Pellet vs. Tissue | Supernatant vs. Tissue |
| Correlation Coefficient ( | Correlation Coefficient ( | Correlation Coefficient ( | |
|
| 0.30 ( |
| 0.35 ( |
|
|
|
| 0.55 ( |
|
| 0.55 ( |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.53 ( |
|
| 0.34 ( | 0.47 ( | 0.34 ( |
|
| 0.47 ( |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values in bold represent statistically significant correlations (i.e., p < 0.05).
Figure 1Box plots of methylation levels for bladder cancer (BC) patients and benign hematuria controls in each urine fraction (full void, pellet and supernatant) per methylation marker. Significant outcomes (p < 0.05) of the Mann–Whitney U test are displayed as *.
Area under the curve values for the nine methylation markers and marker panel GHSR/MAL, in full void, urine pellet and supernatant.
| Markers | Full Void | Pellet | Supernatant |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | |||
|
| 0.31 (0.09–0.54) | 0.41 (0.18–0.63) | 0.43 (0.20–0.65) |
|
| 0.69 (0.47–0.90) | 0.78 (0.60–0.97) | 0.78 (0.58–0.97) |
|
| 0.75 (0.55–0.96) | 0.74 (0.54–0.94) | 0.69 (0.46–0.91) |
|
| 0.67 (0.45–0.90) | 0.63 (0.40–0.86) | 0.64 (0.42–0.87) |
|
| 0.81 (0.63–0.99) | 0.75 (0.56–0.94) | 0.64 (0.42–0.86) |
|
| 0.66 (0.45–0.87) | 0.66 (0.45–0.87) | 0.63 (0.42–0.85) |
|
| 0.62 (0.38–0.85) | 0.79 (0.61–0.97) | 0.73 (0.53–0.93) |
|
| 0.68 (0.46–0.90) | 0.70 (0.50–0.91) | 0.73 (0.53–0.94) |
|
| 0.81 (0.64–0.98) | 0.78 (0.60–0.96) | 0.80 (0.62–0.98) |
|
| 0.77 (0.58–0.96) | 0.87 (0.73–1.00) | 0.83 (0.66–1.00) |
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval.
Relative sensitivity and specificity of urine pellet and supernatant for bladder cancer diagnosis, as compared to full void. New cut-offs were determined for urine pellet and supernatant; optimal cut-offs from our previous study were used for full void [6].
| Markers | Pellet | Supernatant | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative Sens: Pellet vs. Full Void (95% CI) | Relative Spec: Pellet vs. Full Void (95% CI) | Relative Sens: Supernatant vs. Full Void (95% CI) | Relative Spec: Supernatant vs. Full Void (95% CI) | |
|
| 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.60 (0.94–2.74) | 1.00 * | 1.40 (0.88–2.24) | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.50 (0.95–2.38) | 0.92 (0.77–1.09) | 1.17 (0.86–1.58) | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.75 (0.92–3.32) | 1.00 * | 1.50 (0.85–2.64) | 1.00 * |
|
| 2.67 (1.09–6.52) | 0.92 (0.77–1.09) | 1.33 (0.76–2.35) | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.50 (0.85–2.64) | 0.83 (0.65–1.07) | 1.50 (0.85–2.64) | 0.92 (0.77–1.09) |
|
| 1.33 (0.89–1.99) | 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.50 (0.95–2.38) | 0.83 (0.65–1.07) |
|
| 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.00 * | 1.00 * |
|
| 1.43 (0.95–2.14) | 0.92 (0.77–1.09) | 1.00 * | 1.00 * |
* CI not estimable, since there was a perfect match in positive and negative outcomes between both fractions. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval.