Naheema S Gordon, Elspeth K McGuigan, Michaela Ondasova, Jennifer Knight, Laura A Baxter, Sascha Ott, Robert K Hastings, Maurice P Zeegers, Nicholas D James, K K Cheng, Anshita Goel, Minghao Yu, Roland Arnold, Richard T Bryan, Douglas G Ward
{"title":"Comparison and combination of mutation and methylation-based urine tests for bladder cancer detection.","authors":"Naheema S Gordon, Elspeth K McGuigan, Michaela Ondasova, Jennifer Knight, Laura A Baxter, Sascha Ott, Robert K Hastings, Maurice P Zeegers, Nicholas D James, K K Cheng, Anshita Goel, Minghao Yu, Roland Arnold, Richard T Bryan, Douglas G Ward","doi":"10.1186/s40364-024-00682-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Several non-invasive tests for detecting bladder cancer (BC) are commercially available and are based on detecting small panels of BC-associated mutations and/or methylation changes in urine DNA. However, it is not clear which type of biomarker is best, or if a combination of the two is needed. In this study we address this question by taking a 23-gene mutation panel (GALEAS™ Bladder, GB) and testing if adding a panel of methylation markers improves the sensitivity of BC detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-three methylation markers were assessed in urine DNA by bisulphite conversion, multiplex PCR, and next generation sequencing in 118 randomly selected haematuria patients with pre-existing GB data (56 BCs and 62 non-BCs), split into training and test sets. We also analysed an additional 16 GB false-negative urine DNAs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The methylation panel detected bladder cancer in haematuria patients with 69% sensitivity at 96% specificity (test set results, 95% CIs 52-87% and 80-99%, respectively). Corresponding sensitivity and specificity for GB were 92% and 89%. Methylation and mutation markers were highly concordant in urine, with all GB false-negative samples also negative for methylation markers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and limitations: </strong>Our data show that, with a comprehensive mutation panel, any gains from adding methylation markers are, at best, marginal. It is likely that low tumour content is the commonest cause of false-negative urine test results. Our study does have a limited sample size and other methylation markers might behave differently to the those studied here.</p>","PeriodicalId":54225,"journal":{"name":"Biomarker Research","volume":"12 1","pages":"133"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarker Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-024-00682-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Several non-invasive tests for detecting bladder cancer (BC) are commercially available and are based on detecting small panels of BC-associated mutations and/or methylation changes in urine DNA. However, it is not clear which type of biomarker is best, or if a combination of the two is needed. In this study we address this question by taking a 23-gene mutation panel (GALEAS™ Bladder, GB) and testing if adding a panel of methylation markers improves the sensitivity of BC detection.
Methods: Twenty-three methylation markers were assessed in urine DNA by bisulphite conversion, multiplex PCR, and next generation sequencing in 118 randomly selected haematuria patients with pre-existing GB data (56 BCs and 62 non-BCs), split into training and test sets. We also analysed an additional 16 GB false-negative urine DNAs.
Results: The methylation panel detected bladder cancer in haematuria patients with 69% sensitivity at 96% specificity (test set results, 95% CIs 52-87% and 80-99%, respectively). Corresponding sensitivity and specificity for GB were 92% and 89%. Methylation and mutation markers were highly concordant in urine, with all GB false-negative samples also negative for methylation markers.
Conclusions and limitations: Our data show that, with a comprehensive mutation panel, any gains from adding methylation markers are, at best, marginal. It is likely that low tumour content is the commonest cause of false-negative urine test results. Our study does have a limited sample size and other methylation markers might behave differently to the those studied here.
Biomarker ResearchBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Medicine
CiteScore
15.80
自引率
1.80%
发文量
80
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍:
Biomarker Research, an open-access, peer-reviewed journal, covers all aspects of biomarker investigation. It seeks to publish original discoveries, novel concepts, commentaries, and reviews across various biomedical disciplines. The field of biomarker research has progressed significantly with the rise of personalized medicine and individual health. Biomarkers play a crucial role in drug discovery and development, as well as in disease diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and prevention, particularly in the genome era.