Jinke Sui1, Xianrui Wu2, Chenyang Wang3, Guoqiang Wang3, Chengcheng Li3, Jing Zhao3, Yuzi Zhang3, Jianxing Xiang3, Yu Xu3, Weiqi Nian4, Fuao Cao1, Guanyu Yu1, Zheng Lou1, Liqiang Hao1, Lianjie Liu1, Bingsi Li3, Zhihong Zhang3, Shangli Cai3, Hao Liu3, Ping Lan5, Wei Zhang6. 1. Colorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. 2. Colorectal Surgery Department, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Yuancun Erheng Road No. 26, Guangzhou, 510655, China. 3. Burning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China. 4. Phase I Ward, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China. 5. Colorectal Surgery Department, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Yuancun Erheng Road No. 26, Guangzhou, 510655, China. lanping@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 6. Colorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. weizhang2000cn@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) would help to identify tumors when curative treatments are available and beneficial. However, current screening methods for CRC, e.g., colonoscopy, may affect patients' compliance due to the uncomfortable, invasive and time-consuming process. In recent decades, methylation profiles of blood-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results in the early detection of multiple tumors. Here we conducted a study to investigate the performance of ctDNA methylation markers in early detection of CRC. RESULTS: In total, 742 participants were enrolled in the study including CRC (n = 332), healthy control (n = 333), benign colorectal disease (n = 65) and advanced adenoma (n = 12). After age-matched and randomization, 298 participants (149 cancer and 149 healthy control) were included in training set and 141 (67 cancer and 74 healthy control) were in test set. In the training set, the specificity was 89.3% (83.2-93.7%) and the sensitivity was 88.6% (82.4-93.2%). In terms of different stages, the sensitivities were 79.4% (62.1-91.2%) in patients with stage I, 88.9% (77.3-95.8%) in patients with stage II, 91.4% (76.9-98.2%) in patients with stage III and 96.2% (80.3-99.9%) in patients with stage IV. Similar results were validated in the test set with the specificity of 91.9% (83.1-97.0%) and sensitivity of 83.6% (72.5-91.6%). Sensitivities for stage I-III were 87.0% (79.7-92.4%) in the training set and 82.5% (70.2-91.3%) in the test set, respectively. In the unmatched total population, the positive ratios were 7.8% (5.2-11.2%) in healthy control, 30.8% (19.9-43.5%) in benign colorectal disease and 58.3% (27.5-84.7%) in advanced adenoma, while the sensitivities of stage I-IV were similar with training and test sets. Compared with methylated SEPT9 model, the present model had higher sensitivity (87.0% [81.8-91.2%] versus 41.2% [34.6-48.1%], P < 0.001) under comparable specificity (90.1% [85.4-93.7%] versus 90.6% [86.0-94.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Together our findings showed that ctDNA methylation markers were promising in the early detection of CRC. Further validation of this model is warranted in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: Early detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) would help to identify tumors when curative treatments are available and beneficial. However, current screening methods for CRC, e.g., colonoscopy, may affect patients' compliance due to the uncomfortable, invasive and time-consuming process. In recent decades, methylation profiles of blood-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results in the early detection of multiple tumors. Here we conducted a study to investigate the performance of ctDNA methylation markers in early detection of CRC. RESULTS: In total, 742 participants were enrolled in the study including CRC (n = 332), healthy control (n = 333), benign colorectal disease (n = 65) and advanced adenoma (n = 12). After age-matched and randomization, 298 participants (149 cancer and 149 healthy control) were included in training set and 141 (67 cancer and 74 healthy control) were in test set. In the training set, the specificity was 89.3% (83.2-93.7%) and the sensitivity was 88.6% (82.4-93.2%). In terms of different stages, the sensitivities were 79.4% (62.1-91.2%) in patients with stage I, 88.9% (77.3-95.8%) in patients with stage II, 91.4% (76.9-98.2%) in patients with stage III and 96.2% (80.3-99.9%) in patients with stage IV. Similar results were validated in the test set with the specificity of 91.9% (83.1-97.0%) and sensitivity of 83.6% (72.5-91.6%). Sensitivities for stage I-III were 87.0% (79.7-92.4%) in the training set and 82.5% (70.2-91.3%) in the test set, respectively. In the unmatched total population, the positive ratios were 7.8% (5.2-11.2%) in healthy control, 30.8% (19.9-43.5%) in benign colorectal disease and 58.3% (27.5-84.7%) in advanced adenoma, while the sensitivities of stage I-IV were similar with training and test sets. Compared with methylated SEPT9 model, the present model had higher sensitivity (87.0% [81.8-91.2%] versus 41.2% [34.6-48.1%], P < 0.001) under comparable specificity (90.1% [85.4-93.7%] versus 90.6% [86.0-94.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Together our findings showed that ctDNA methylation markers were promising in the early detection of CRC. Further validation of this model is warranted in prospective studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal carcinoma; Early detection; Methylation; ctDNA
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Carmen E Guerra; Samuel J LaMonte; Ruth Etzioni; Matthew T McKenna; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Kimberly S Andrews; Otis W Brawley; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Rebecca L Siegel; Richard C Wender; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Thomas F Imperiale; David F Ransohoff; Steven H Itzkowitz; Theodore R Levin; Philip Lavin; Graham P Lidgard; David A Ahlquist; Barry M Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Oliver Hahn; Sebastian Grönke; Thomas M Stubbs; Gabriella Ficz; Oliver Hendrich; Felix Krueger; Simon Andrews; Qifeng Zhang; Michael J Wakelam; Andreas Beyer; Wolf Reik; Linda Partridge Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Maaike Buskermolen; Dayna R Cenin; Lise M Helsingen; Gordon Guyatt; Per Olav Vandvik; Ulrike Haug; Michael Bretthauer; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-10-02
Authors: Joshua D Cohen; Lu Li; Yuxuan Wang; Christopher Thoburn; Bahman Afsari; Ludmila Danilova; Christopher Douville; Ammar A Javed; Fay Wong; Austin Mattox; Ralph H Hruban; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael G Goggins; Marco Dal Molin; Tian-Li Wang; Richard Roden; Alison P Klein; Janine Ptak; Lisa Dobbyn; Joy Schaefer; Natalie Silliman; Maria Popoli; Joshua T Vogelstein; James D Browne; Robert E Schoen; Randall E Brand; Jeanne Tie; Peter Gibbs; Hui-Li Wong; Aaron S Mansfield; Jin Jen; Samir M Hanash; Massimo Falconi; Peter J Allen; Shibin Zhou; Chetan Bettegowda; Luis A Diaz; Cristian Tomasetti; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Anne Marie Lennon; Nickolas Papadopoulos Journal: Science Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 47.728