| Literature DB >> 32512514 |
Kaishan Tao1, Zhenyuan Bian2, Qiong Zhang3, Xu Guo4, Chun Yin4, Yang Wang1, Kaixiang Zhou4, Shaogui Wan5, Meifang Shi6, Dengke Bao7, Chuhu Yang8, Jinliang Xing9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNAs released from tumor cells into blood (circulating tumor DNAs, ctDNAs) carry tumor-specific genomic aberrations, providing a non-invasive means for cancer detection. In this study, we aimed to leverage somatic copy number aberration (SCNA) in ctDNA to develop assays to detect early-stage HCCs.Entities:
Keywords: Copy number aberration (CNA); Early detection; Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); Machine learning
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32512514 PMCID: PMC7276513 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Flowchart of the analysis procedure
Patient characteristics
| Characteristics | Discovery cohort | Validation cohort 1 | Validation cohort 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N=209) | (N=76) | (N=99) | ||||
| HBV controls | HCC patients | HBV controls | HCC patients | HBV controls | HCC patients | |
| (N=101) | (N=108) | (N=38) | (N=38) | (N=48) | (N=51) | |
| Female, N (%) | 27 (26.7) | 14 (13.0) | 8 (21.1) | 7 (18.4) | 11 (22.9) | 14 (27.5) |
| Male, N (%) | 74 (73.3) | 94 (87.0) | 30 (78.9) | 31 (81.6) | 37 (77.1) | 37 (72.5) |
| 49.9 (9.0) | 53.3 (10.2) | 46.2 (7.9) | 53.6 (7.3) | 45.8 (12.3) | 55.0 (10.7) | |
| Negative, < 25 ng/mL, N (%) | 89 (88.1) | 48 (44.4) | 36 (94.7) | 15 (39.5) | 43 (89.6) | 24 (47.1) |
| Positive, ≥ 25 ng/mL, N (%) | 4 (4.0) | 54 (50.0) | 0 (0) | 22 (57.9) | 5 (10.4) | 27 (52.9) |
| NA, N (%) | 8 (7.9) | 6 (5.6) | 2 (5.3) | 1 (2.6) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Normal, ≤ 40 U/L, N (%) | 57 (56.4) | 63 (58.3) | 29 (76.3) | 22 (57.9) | 35 (72.9) | 32 (62.7) |
| Elevated, > 40 U/L, N (%) | 41 (40.6) | 45 (41.7) | 9 (23.7) | 16 (42.1) | 12 (25.0) | 19 (37.3) |
| NA, N (%) | 3 (3.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) |
| Normal, ≤ 37 U/L, N (%) | 70 (69.3) | 52 (48.2) | 30 (78.9) | 29 (76.3) | 36 (72.9) | 38 (74.5) |
| Elevated, > 37 U/L, N (%) | 28 (27.7) | 56 (51.8) | 8 (21.1) | 9 (23.7) | 12 (25.0) | 13 (25.5) |
| NA, N (%) | 3 (3.0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) |
| Normal, ≤ 117 U/L, N (%) | 59 (58.4) | 66 (61.1) | 23 (60.5) | 27 (71.1) | 30 (62.5) | 44 (86.3) |
| Elevated, > 117 U/L, N (%) | 13 (12.9) | 42 (38.9) | 5 (13.2) | 11 (28.9) | 15 (31.3) | 7 (13.7) |
| NA, N (%) | 29 (28.7) | 0 (0) | 10 (26.3) | 0 (0) | 3 (6.2) | 0 (0) |
| Undetectable, N (%) | 9 (8.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 28 (58.3) | 23 (45.1) |
| Low, ≤ 2000 IU/mL, N (%) | 77 (76.2) | 38 (35.2) | 34 (89.5) | 12 (31.6) | 10 (20.8) | 14 (27.5) |
| High, > 2000 IU/ml, N (%) | 13 (12.9) | 16 (14.8) | 4 (10.5) | 2 (5.3) | 10 (20.8) | 12 (23.5) |
| NA, N (%) | 2 (2.0) | 54 (50.0) | 0 (0) | 24 (63.1) | 0 (0) | 2 (3.9) |
| No, N (%) | 59 (58.4) | 25 (23.1) | 16 (42.1) | 12 (31.6) | 26 (54.2) | 19 (37.3) |
| Yes, N (%) | 42 (41.6) | 83 (76.9) | 22 (57.9) | 26 (68.4) | 22 (45.8) | 32 (62.7) |
| 0, N (%) | - | 6 (5.6) | - | 3 (7.9) | - | 9 (17.6) |
| A, N (%) | - | 67 (62.0) | - | 35 (92.1) | - | 42 (82.4) |
| B, N (%) | - | 22 (20.4) | - | 0 (0) | - | 0 (0) |
| C, N (%) | - | 12 (11.1) | - | 0 (0) | - | 0 (0) |
| D, N (%) | - | 1 (0.9) | - | 0 (0) | - | 0 (0) |
| Well differentiated | - | 8 (7.4) | - | 4 (10.5) | - | 0 (0) |
| Moderately differentiated | - | 45 (41.7) | - | 18 (47.4) | - | 31 (60.8) |
| Poorly differentiated | - | 6 (5.5) | - | 7 (18.4) | - | 17 (33.3) |
| Unknown | - | 49 (45.4) | - | 9 (23.7) | - | 3 (5.9) |
SD: standard deviation; AFP: alpha fetoprotein; HBV: hepatitis B virus; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; NC: not available; BCLC stage: Barcelona-Clinic-Liver-Cancer stage; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase.
Fig. 2ROC curves and AUC statistics based on the TFx statistics estimated by ichorCNA in the discovery cohort (A) and two validation cohorts (B).
Fig. 3(A) The cross-validation ROC curves and AUC statistics of the random forest model based on SCNA profiles data in the discovery cohort. (B) ROC curves and AUC statistics of the wRF-driver model in the two validation cohorts based on the model trained using genome-wide SCNA profiles data in the discovery cohort.
Fig. 4The performance (ROC and AUC statistics) of three wRF-driver models evaluated on the validation cohort 2. The three models were trained based on data of three categories of samples with distinct stages and levels of ctDNA burden. The blue, green and black lines represent the performance of the model trained on stage B-D samples, stage 0-A samples, and samples after filtering LOD, respectively.