Background/Objectives: Human endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are genomic sequences integrated into the human genome from ancestral exogenous retroviruses and are epigenetically silenced under normal conditions. Growing evidence has shown that they can be reactivated in human diseases such as cancers and autoimmune diseases. However, their clinical implications in colon cancer are yet to be explored. Methods: RNA-seq data were downloaded from RNA Atlas and TCGA for cell lines and tissue samples, respectively. After alignment, ERV expression was quantified against comprehensively compiled ERVs (3220). ERV expression profiles were compared between sequencing protocols, cancer and normal cells, and matched tumor and normal tissue pairs. Unsupervised clustering was used to identify ERV-defined tumor subtypes and their associations with clinical and other molecular features. ERV association with disease-specific survival (DSS) was performed using the Cox regression model. Results: PolyA and total RNA protocols were comparable in ERV expression detection. Cancer cells had significantly increased ERV expression and reactivation. Upregulated ERVs were significantly enriched in viral protein interactions with cytokine and cytokine receptors. ERV expression-defined tumor classes were significantly associated with tumor mutation burden and immuno-phenotypes such as antigen processing and presenting machinery and tumor immune infiltration score. Survival analysis identified 152 ERVs to be independently associated with DSS. Conclusions: ERV abnormal expression is common in colon cancer. The ERV-defined subtypes are associated with tumor immunity, and some ERVs are independently associated with patient outcomes.
Blood Plasma Methylated
DNA
Markers in the Detection of Lymphoma: Discovery, Validation, and Clinical Pilot
ABSTRACT Lymphoma is one of the leading causes of cancer and cancer deaths and yet has not been amenable to population screening. The role of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) in the detection of lymphoma has not been extensively studied. We aimed to discover, validate, and test tissue–derived MDMs of lymphoma in archival plasma specimens. Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) was performed on a discovery set of frozen tissues. MDMs identified were converted to methylation–specific PCR assays and validated on independent formalin–fixed, paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissues. Target enrichment long–probe quantitative‐amplified signal (TELQAS) assays were developed and assayed in plasma–extracted, bisulfite‐converted DNA from independent treatment‐naïve lymphoma patients and healthy controls. Prediction of cancer status was modeled using random forest model with in silico cross‐validation. After discovery and validation in tissue, 16 TELQAS assays ( ZNF503 , VWA5B1 , HOXA9 , GABRG3 , ITGA5 , MAX.chr17.7190 , BNC1 , CDK20 , MAX.chr4.4069 , TPBG , DNAH14 , SYT6 , CACNG8 , FAM110B , ADRA1D , and NRN1 ) were selected for testing in plasma. These detected 78% (95% CI, 74%–82%) of lymphoma cases at 90% specificity. Excluding marginal zone and T‐cell lymphomas, sensitivity increased to 84% (80%–88%). MDMs in plasma show promise to detect lymphoma and are candidates for inclusion in multi‐cancer detection studies.
Methylated DNA Markers in Voided Urine for the Identification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
Introduction: Non-invasive assays are needed to better discriminate patients with prostate cancer (PCa) to avoid over-treatment of indolent disease. We analyzed 14 methylated DNA markers (MDMs) from urine samples of patients with biopsy-proven PCa relative to healthy controls and further studied discrimination of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) from healthy controls and Gleason 6 cancers. Methods: To evaluate the panel, urine from 24 healthy male volunteers with no clinical suspicion for PCa and 24 men with biopsy-confirmed disease across all Gleason scores was collected. Blinded to clinical status, DNA from the supernatant was analyzed for methylation signal within specific DNA sequences across 14 genes (HES5, ZNF655, ITPRIPL1, MAX.chr3.6187, SLCO3A1, CHST11, SERPINB9, WNT3A, KCNB2, GAS6, AKR1B1, MAX.chr3.8028, GRASP, ST6GALNAC2) by target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays. Results: Utilizing an overall specificity cut-off of 100% for discriminating normal controls from PCa cases across the MDM panel resulted in 71% sensitivity (95% CI: 49–87%) for PCa detection (4/7 Gleason 6, 8/12 Gleason 7, 5/5 Gleason 8+) and 76% (50–92%) for csPCa (Gleason ≥ 7). At 100% specificity for controls and Gleason 6 patients combined, MDM panel sensitivity was 59% (33–81%) for csPCa (5/12 Gleason 7, 5/5 Gleason 8+). Conclusions: MDMs assayed in urine offer high sensitivity and specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Prospective evaluation is necessary to estimate discrimination of patients as first-line screening and as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.
Methylated DNA markers discriminate ovarian cancer from benign tissue in BRCA carriers.
e17610 Background: Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) associated with sporadic ovarian cancer (OC) are detected in plasma from patients with treatment naïve tumors, but not cancer-free controls. To assess potential benefits to patients at risk for hereditary OC, the aim of this study was to measure the performance of validated sporadic OC MDMs in OC and benign ovarian tissue (BOT), surgically obtained from germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2) mutation carriers. Methods: BRCA1/2 carriers with OC and BRCA1/2 carriers who had undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (SO) were identified at a comprehensive cancer center. BRCA1/2 carriers in both OC and BOT groups were balanced on age and year of surgery with non- BRCA carriers with sporadic OC or benign indications for SO. OC and BOT formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues were macrodissected following pathologist selection of representative sites; DNA was extracted, and bisulfite converted. 15 OC MDMs ( GDF6, IFFO1, MAX.chr1.147790358, MAX.chr6.10382190, MAX.chr11.14926602, C2CD4D, PDRM14, NCOR2, SKI, DSCR6, SIM2, PALLD, CDO1, GPRIN1, BCAT1) previously identified in sporadic OC were assayed by quantitative methylation specific PCR, normalized by β-actin, by blinded personnel. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were generated for each MDM to assess discrimination of OC from benign tissue and compared between BRCA1/2 and sporadic (non- BRCA) patients, using a z-test. Results: Among BRCA1/2 carriers, there were 48 OC ( BRCA-OC) and 48 BOT ( BRCA-BOT); among non- BRCA, we matched 48 OC (Sporadic-OC) and 48 BOT (non- BRCA-BOT). The median AUC for OC MDM discriminated between OC and BOT with AUCs in BRCA1/2 carriers was 0.87, (IQR, 0.83-0.93). Sporadic-OC vs non- BRCA-BOT median AUC was 0.88 (IQR, 0.83-0.92). AUCs were not significantly different for each MDM when stratified by BRCA or sporadic status. MDMs with an AUC of ≥0.9 in either group are shown (Table). Conclusions: OC MDMs identified and validated in sporadic OC are highly discriminant for OC from BOT in DNA extracted from tissues of people who carry a BRCA1/2 mutation. Testing the performance of these OC MDMs in plasma from BRCA1/2 carriers with and without OC may be of clinical value for high-risk patients and inform multi-cancer early detection testing strategies.[Table: see text]
Methylated DNA markers in urine aid in the selective identification of patients with prostate cancer as well as clinically significant pathology.
5091 Background: Controversy surrounding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for prostate cancer (PCa) highlights the need for non-invasive assays that better discriminate patients with and without clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Such distinction avoids overtreatment in patients with absent or indolent disease while capturing pathology that would derive benefit from intervention. We analyzed the presence of specific methylated DNA markers (MDMs) within urine samples of patients with biopsy proven PCa and assessed the ability to discriminate these patients from healthy controls with no clinical suspicion for PCa. Methods: 24 healthy volunteers with no clinical suspicion for PCa were age-matched to 24 patients with biopsy-confirmed disease across all Gleason scores. Urine collected from subjects was centrifuged with the cell-free supernatant analyzed in a blinded fashion for methylation signal within specific DNA sequences across 14 genes ( HES5, ZNF655, ITPRIPL1, MAX.chr3.193, SLCO3A1, CHST11, SERPINB9, WNT3A, KCNB2, GAS6, AKR1B1, MAX.chr3.727, GRASP, ST6GALNAC2) by target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays. A patient was considered to have a positive MDM panel if any individual marker exceeded the corresponding100% specificity cut-off value (overall MDM panel specificity of 100%). MDM panel positivity was used to evaluate the sensitivity for distinguishing patients with PCa (any Gleason score) from controls as well as discriminate csPCa cancers from PCa Gleason 6. Results: Median age of healthy controls and PCa patients was 70 years (IQR 67-72) and 65 years (IQR 61-71), respectively. Median PSA was 6.4 (IQR 4.9-9.0) among PCa patients, including median PSA of 5 (IQR 4.0-6.1) for Gleason 6, and 7.8 (IQR 5.1-9.2) for Gleason ≥7 disease. Gleason 6, Gleason 7, and Gleason 8+ cancer was noted in 8, 10, and 6 patients, respectively. Utilizing an overall specificity cut-off of 100% for discriminating normal controls from PCa cases across the MDM panel revealed an overall sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 63-95%) for detection of PCa (6 of 8 Gleason 6, 9 of 10 Gleason 7, 5 of 6 Gleason 8+) and 88% (95% CI: 62-98%) for csPCa (Gleason ≥ 7). When considering a 100% specificity threshold for controls and Gleason 6 patients, the sensitivity the MDM panel was 69% (95% CI: 41-89%) for csPCa (6 of 10 Gleason 7, 5 of 6 Gleason 8+). Conclusions: We describe a panel of 14 MDMs within urine that offer high specificity and sensitivity for detection of prostate cancers as well as selective identification of clinically significant disease states. Prospective comparison between urine MDMs and PSA blood testing is necessary to discern the differential clinical impact of each screening methodology.