Taylor, William R.

ABSTRACT Background and Objectives Occult intra‐abdominal metastases are identified in approximately 20% of patients with radiographically localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) through staging laparoscopy, as peritoneal cytology is limited in sensitivity. Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) have demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for PDAC in tumor tissue, blood, and pancreatic secretions. This study assesses the feasibility and diagnostic performance of MDMs in peritoneal lavage fluid collected during staging laparoscopy, comparing their performance to mutant KRAS (m KRAS ) detection. Methods DNA from peritoneal lavage fluid of PDAC patients was analyzed for m KRAS mutations (codons 12, 13, and 61) using droplet‐digital PCR and for 13 MDMs and a reference gene (B3GALT6) using quantitative methylation‐specific PCR. An MDM score was generated from the average signal of the 13 MDMs and evaluated for its ability to detect intra‐abdominal metastases via receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results Among 48 patients, 15 (31%) had intra‐abdominal metastases. The MDM score showed 87% sensitivity and 90% specificity (AUC = 0.98), outperforming m KRAS , which showed 40% sensitivity and 85% specificity (AUC = 0.62; p < 0.0001). Conclusions MDMs in peritoneal lavage fluid may enable highly accurate molecular staging of PDAC and warrant validation in larger studies.

Abstract Aberrant DNA methylation and copy-number alterations (CNA) drive Barrett’s esophagus progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, their combined utility for early detection is unclear. We aimed to identify and validate methylated DNA markers (MDM) and CNAs to distinguish esophageal adenocarcinoma/high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). In this multiphase, multicenter study, we discovered and validated MDMs and quantified CNAs utilizing whole-genome methylation sequencing of esophageal brushings. DNA biomarkers identified from discovery were further validated in independent patients with paired esophageal brushing and swallowed capsule sponge samples. MDMs were filtered against a reduced representation bisulfite sequencing dataset obtained from independent tissue samples to advance only concordant candidates. CNA burden was quantified using ichorCNA-derived aneuploidy scores (AS). Two hundred MDMs discovered in HGD (N = 18) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (N = 18) versus NDBE brushing samples (N = 18) were tested in independent samples (N = 146). A 52-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95]; the addition of AS improved discrimination of HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from NDBE to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86–0.97) AUC. At 80% specificity, the combined model detected 93% of esophageal adenocarcinoma and 88% of HGD cases. In paired capsule sponge samples, a 58-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66–0.88); a combined 58-MDM and AS model achieved AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.7–0.9). MDMs and AS discerned HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from normal esophagus/NDBE in endoscopic brushing and capsule sponge samples. This approach may improve Barrett’s esophagus surveillance. Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that combining epigenetic and genomic biomarkers across minimally invasive sampling methods can accurately distinguish HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, offering promising, less invasive strategies to improve BE surveillance and enable endoscopic therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention and treatment.

Abstract Introduction: Barrett’s esophagus (BE) confers increased cancer risk. Endoscopic surveillance is recommended to distinguish non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), low grade dysplasia (LGD), high grade dysplasia (HGD), or adenocarcinoma (EAC) for endoscopic intervention. However, this paradigm is limited by sampling error, leading to missed/interval EAC. Herein, we aimed to classify these samples more accurately by performing whole genome methylation sequencing (WGMS) and utilizing multiple genomic features on endoscopic brush samples. Materials and methods: Endoscopic brush samples from patients with NDBE (n=18), HGD (18), EAC (18), and normal controls (18) were collected and underwent WGMS (discovery dataset). Sequence reads were processed through internal pipeline to extract CpG methylation and read level methylation ratio (alpha value). Copy number aberration (CNA) detection was performed using both CNVkit and ichorCNA. Differential methylated regions (DMRs) were identified through comparing EAC/HGD with NDBE and normal samples. Targeted methylation sequencing for selected DMRs and shallow WGMS were performed on EAC (41), HGD (26), LGD (23), NDBE (42), and normal controls (37) as validation. Ratio of the reads with alpha value&gt;0.6 for each DMR was used for further analysis. Detected CNA segments were summarized into chromosome arm loss or gain (aneuploidy score or AS representing the number of chromosome arms gained or lost in a sample) and trimmed median absolute deviation (tMAD). Classification models were developed using the discovery set and the best performing one was applied to the validation dataset. Results: Genome-wide DNA methylation largely segregated different groups of samples as diagnosed; however, some unexpected group crossings were observed. Top 200 DMRs were identified between EAC/HGD and NDBE and normal samples. CNA changes were widespread in EAC, very common in HGD but rare in NDBE (17/18 EACs,14/18 HGDs, 5/18 NDBEs with AS&gt;0). With tMAD &gt; 0.015, 16/18 EACs, 8/18 HGDs but none of 18 NDBEs passed the threshold. EAC or HGD samples without detectable CNAs had very low “tumor” fraction as determined by methylation-based cell type deconvolution or ichorCNA. Similar results were found in the validation dataset. A multi-omics (AS, tMAD, estimated tumor fraction, and DMR methylation) model could predict EAC, HGD, or NDBE with 0.81 accuracy through cross validation (10X) and 0.73 in the independent dataset. This increased to 0.98 and 0.90 in separating high risk EAC/HGD from NDBE, respectively. Conclusion: Multi-omics data obtained from single WGMS allow for a comprehensive analysis of BE samples with varying dysplasia levels. Using classification modeling, these characteristics can be effectively used to accurately identify and distinguish between EAC and HGD from NDBE, suggesting their utility as adjuncts to endoscopic surveillance biopsies. Citation Format: Zhifu Sun, Caroline L. Matchett, Seth W. Slettedahl, William R. Taylor, Panwen Wang, Calise Berger, Caryn E. Anderson, Melissa A. Passe, Ramona Lansing, Collin E. Chalmers, Patrick H. Foote, Jeanette E. Eckel Passow, Doug W. Mahoney, John B. Kisiel, Prasad G. Iyer. Multi-omics cancer risk assessment of Barrett’s esophagus with DNA methylation sequencing from endoscopic brush samples [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr LB249.

Abstract Lynch syndrome (LS) markedly increases risks of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Early detection biomarkers for LS cancers could reduce the needs for invasive screening and surgical prophylaxis. To validate a panel of methylated DNA markers (MDM) previously identified in sporadic colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer for discrimination of these cancers in LS. In a case–control design, previously identified MDMs for the detection of colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer were assayed by qMSP on tissue-extracted DNA. Results were normalized to ACTB values within each sample. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator models to classify colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer were trained on sporadic cases and controls and then applied to classify colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer, in those with LS, and cross-validated. We identified colorectal cancer cases (23 with LS, 48 sporadic), colorectal controls (32 LS, 48 sporadic), endometrial cancer cases (30 LS, 48 sporadic), and endometrial controls (29 LS, 37 sporadic). A 3-MDM panel (LASS4, LRRC4, and PPP2R5C) classified LS-CRC from LS controls with an AUC of 0.92 (0.84–0.99); results were similar for sporadic colorectal cancer. A 6-MDM panel (SFMBT2, MPZ, CYTH2, DIDO1, chr10.4479, and EMX2OS) discriminated LS-EC from LS controls with an AUC of 0.92 (0.83–1.0); the AUC for sporadic endometrial cancer versus sporadic controls was nominally higher, 0.99 (0.96–1.0). MDMs previously identified in sporadic endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer discriminate between endometrial cancer and benign endometrium and colorectal cancer and benign colorectum in LS. This supports the inclusion of patients with LS within future prospective clinical trials evaluating endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer MDMs and may provide a new avenue for cancer screening or surveillance in this high-risk population. Prevention Relevance: Lynch syndrome (LS) markedly increases risks of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Early detection biomarkers for LS cancers could reduce the needs for invasive screening and surgery. Methylated DNA markers previously identified in sporadic endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer discriminate between benign and cancer tissue in LS.

Abstract Objective: Aberrantly methylated DNA may be used to detect minimal residual disease or early recurrence in breast cancer. As a 1st step, we aimed to develop an MDM panel to delineate between healthy women, stage I-III breast cancer in remission with no evidence of disease (NED), and metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients into 3 groups: healthy controls (adult females with a normal mammogram in past 12 months with no history of breast cancer), NED [stage I-III breast cancer with no clinical evidence of recurrence 6 months - 3 years post-treatment (adjuvant endocrine therapy allowed)], and MBC (collected either at initial diagnosis of untreated metastatic disease or radiographic progression). DNA was extracted from 6 mL of plasma derived from blood collected in LBgard tubes (Exact Sciences Corp., San Diego CA), and was bisulfite-treated and assayed by target enrichment long-probe quantitative amplified signal (TELQASTM) method for a panel of 15 previously identified MDMs [Table], normalized by the control gene, B3GALT6. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for each MDM to assess discrimination of MBC from other groups. With 60 patients per group, we had greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 0.20 from the null AUC of 0.7. Results: We tested samples from 60 MBC (10 untreated, 50 recurrent), 60 NED, and 60 healthy women. The median age was 63 (IQR, 55-72) and was not different between groups. The NED group was all hormone-receptor (HR) positive, with 47 (78%) being human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) and 13 (22%) HER2+; 48 (80%) were stage I and 9 (15%) were N+. The MBC group had 35 (58%) patients with HR+/HER2- tumors, 11 (18%) HR+/HER2+, and 6 (10%) HR-/HER2-, 4 (7%) HR-/HER2+, with 4 (7%) unknown. Of the 41 MBC whose original stage and nodal status were known 9 (22%) were stage I and 22 (54%) were N+. The markers were able to discriminate between MBC and NED patient samples with AUCs from 0.97 to 0.72. AUCs for 10/15 MDMs (ITPRIPL1, EMX1, C17orf64, OSR2, TRIM67, CHST2, IFFO1, TRH, FAM59B, and MPZ) were &gt;0.90. No difference in MDMs was observed between the healthy and NED groups. Conclusions: MDMs, assayed from plasma, appear highly discriminant for metastatic breast cancer cases in comparison to control patients with NED or healthy controls. Further clinical validation of this MDM panel in a larger cohort is warranted. Table 1. Plasma MDM discrimination of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from healthy controls and previously treated breast cancer patients with no evidence of disease (NED) Citation Format: Karthik V. Giridhar, Fergus J. Couch, Jason P. Sinnwell, Seth W. Slettedahl, William R. Taylor, Douglas W. Mahoney, Patrick H. Foote, Maria C. O’Connell, Mariah J. Robran, Mary E. Devens, Anna M. Gonser, Nicole Larson, Karen A. Doering, Kelli N. Burger, Michael Kaiser, Hatim Allawi, Kathryn Ruddy, Janet Olson, John B. Kisiel. Plasma assay of methylated DNA markers (MDM) detects patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) compared to healthy controls and treated breast cancer patients with no evidence of disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-06.

Abstract Objectives: We hypothesize that a validated panel of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for HPV(+)CSCC will be similar to but distinct from a cohort of HPV(+)OPSCC. Methods: Patients were excluded for recurrent tumor, prior pelvic or head or neck cancer/neoplasia, chemotherapy &lt; 1 year, prior therapeutic radiation to the target region, prior transplant, insufficient target tissue (&lt;5mm), or if &lt;18 yrs. MDMs identified from sequenced differentially methylated regions were selected from a panel validated for HPV(+)CSCC and evaluated on DNA from independent FFPE HPV(+)OPSCC, HPV(+)CSCC, normal oropharynx tonsil, and normal cervix tissue using methylation-specific PCR. White blood cells (WBCs) were used as a background control. Results: 34 HPV(+)OPSCC, 36 HPV(+)CSCC, 26 normal tonsil tissue, and 24 normal cervical tissue patients met criteria. The HPV(+)OPSCC cohort was older (57 vs 44 yrs, p=0.027), had more frequent alcohol exposure (85% vs 64%, p=0.02), but similar ACE-27 comorbidity scores (p=0.078) and tobacco use (p=0.066). Tumor stages were stage I (47% and 83%), stage II (44% and 11%) and stage III (9% and 6%) for HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC, respectively. Twenty-one MDMs were evaluated and areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) are reported (Table 1). 95% confidence intervals excluded a non-diagnostic null hypothesis AUC of 0.5. 5/21 (24%) achieved an AUC ≥ 0.90, 15/21 (71%) achieved an AUC ≥ 0.8, and 19/21 (90%) exhibited better than chance classifications relative to control tonsil tissue (all p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: MDMs have the potential to discriminate both HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC from their normal tissue controls. 90% of the MDMs discovered for HPV(+)CSCC had better than chance discrimination in HPV(+)OPSCC suggesting a distinct signature between the two subtypes. Future discovery efforts specific to HPV(+)OPSCC is warranted. Methylated DNA Markers in HPV(+)OPSCC and HPV(+)CSCC CSCC AUC (95% CI) OPSCC AUC (95% CI) AUC CSCC vs AUC OPSCC Pvalue GRIN2D 0.72 (0.59-0.85) 0.91 (0.83-0.99) 0.019 EMX1 0.93 (0.86-0.99) 0.77 (0.65-0.89) 0.0191 VWC2 0.88 (0.79-0.97) 0.57 (0.42-0.72) 0.0001 ZNF610 0.99 (0.98-1) 0.89 (0.8-0.97) 0.0162 ZNF781.F 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.79 (0.67-0.91) 0.0585 TBX15 0.99 (0.96-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.0025 TSPYL5 0.94 (0.87-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.058 LOC645323 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.88 (0.8-0.97) 0.1952 ASCL1 0.98 (0.93-1) 0.86 (0.76-0.95) 0.0187 ABCB1 0.97 (0.93-1) 0.74 (0.61-0.86) 0.0001 ZNF69 0.89 (0.8-0.97) 0.95 (0.9-1) 0.2017 MAX.chr9 0.97 (0.92-1) 0.82 (0.72-0.93) 0.0113 ARHGAP12 0.91 (0.83-0.99) 0.9 (0.81-1) 0.9223 C1orf114 0.94 (0.86-1) 0.88 (0.8-0.97) 0.3366 MAX.chr6 0.99 (0.97-1) 0.86 (0.76-0.96) 0.0099 NEUROG3 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.7 (0.57-0.83) 0.0001 NID2 0.98 (0.95-1) 0.86 (0.77-0.95) 0.0207 TMEM200C 0.95 (0.89-1) 0.54 (0.39-0.69) 0.0001 TTYH1 0.99 (0.98-1) 0.82 (0.71-0.93) 0.0023 ZNF773 0.93 (0.86-1) 0.9 (0.82-0.98) 0.5696 ZNF781.R 1 (1-1) 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.0198 Citation Format: Kathryn M. Van Abel, David M. Routman, Daniel J. Ma, Karen A. Doering, Kelli N. Burger, Patrick H. Foote, William R. Taylor, Douglas W. Mahoney, Calise K. Berger, Xiaoming Cao, Sara S. Then, Alyssa M. Larish, Eric J. Moore, Joaquin G. Garcia, Rondell P. Graham, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, John B. Kisiel. Comparison of methylated DNA markers between human papillomavirus mediated carcinoma in oropharynx and cervical cancer: A pilot study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3742.

9567 Background: Cutaneous melanoma surveillance is important to identify low-volume systemic disease, but imaging is costly and poorly accessible to patients; frequent skin checks lack sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to establish clinical feasibility of a liquid biopsy blood test, which quantifies validated, melanoma-specific, methylated DNA markers (MDMs), previously discovered, and reported by our team, using tissue extracted DNA. Methods: We prospectively collected blood from adult patients with histologically confirmed melanoma metastases and no other internal malignancies (within 5-years) who underwent surveillance by FDG-PET/CT (N = 88). Blood from age- and sex balanced cancer-free controls (N = 100) were compared. From PET/CT, we extracted the number of organs involved, SUV-max, and largest tumor diameter. Unequivocal metastasis was defined as SUV ≥ 4 and largest diameter > 5 mm. Because PET/CT is inadequate for the screening of brain metastases, we excluded the brain from the analysis. MDMs ( chr11.149, HOXA9, chr20.210, FLJ22536, CLIC5, SIX4, chr7.155, chr17.730, chr1.110) were assayed using target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays, normalized to B3GALT6, in blinded fashion. Using a logistic regression approach and nine candidate MDMs, we calculated the sensitivity for detecting patients with metastasis on PET/CT at 100% specificity. Results: 52/88 (59%) of melanoma patients showed evidence of metastasis on PET/CT at the time of blood draw. At 100% specificity, a panel of 4 MDMs ( HOXA9, chr20.210, chr17.730, chr1.110) yielded a sensitivity of 86.5% (45/52 cases) vs. 100 cancer-free controls. When applying this model to the 36 PET/CT-negative patients, specificity was as high as 97.2% (35/36 cases) while maintaining a sensitivity of 86.5% (one patient with a positive test result had a complete metabolic response to binimetinib / encorafenib prior to negative PET/CT). For patients with ≥ 2 organs involved by metastasis, sensitivity was 100% (29/29 cases). False-negative cases had metastasis in single organs and were characterized by minimal tumor burden and oral corticosteroid use. One false-negative patient had localized stage III disease without known primary melanoma. Conclusions: Plasma MDM levels appear highly concordant with FDG-PET/CT in patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. A liquid biopsy approach has potential to lower cost and improve patient access to surveillance. Additional prospective studies in larger intended use cohorts are needed to validate our results.