Profiling of DNA methylation status of specific genes is a way to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic cancer (PC) in blood. The commonality of methylation status of cancer-related tumor suppressor genes between CRC and PC is largely unknown. Methylation status of 56 cancer-related genes was compared in plasma of patients in the following cohorts: CRC, PC and healthy controls. Cross validation determined the best model by area under ROC curve (AUC) to differentiate cancer methylation profiles from controls. Optimal preferential gene methylation signatures were derived to differentiate either cancer (CRC or PC) from controls. For CRC alone, a three gene signature (CYCD2, HIC and VHL) had an AUC 0.9310, sensitivity (Sens) = 0.826, specificity (Spec) = 0.9383. For PC alone, an optimal signature consisted of five genes (VHL, MYF3, TMS, GPC3 and SRBC), AUC 0.848; Sens = 0.807, Spec = 0.666. Combined PC and CRC signature or "combined cancer signature" was derived to differentiate either CRC and PC from controls (MDR1, SRBC, VHL, MUC2, RB1, SYK and GPC3) AUC = 0.8177, Sens = 0.6316 Spec = 0.840. In a validation cohort, N = 10 CRC patients, the optimal CRC signature (CYCD2, HIC and VHL) had AUC 0.900. In all derived signatures (CRC, PC and combined cancer signature) the optimal panel used preferential VHL methylation. In conclusion, CRC and PC differ in specific genes methylated in plasma other than VHL. Preferential methylation of VHL is shared in the optimal signature for CRC alone, PC alone and combined PC and CRC. Future investigations may identify additional methylation markers informative for the presence of both CRC and PC. What's new The potential use of the methylation status of cancer-related genes as a biomarker for plasma-based screening is an area of investigation for both pancreatic and colorectal cancer. While there is evidence that pancreatic and colorectal cancer may share methylation markers - which might enable concomitant and non-invasive screening - how similar their methylation profiles is remains unknown. Here, the authors defined the best methylation signature for both pancreatic and colorectal cancer and identified VHL as a shared optimal marker. The findings suggest that the methylation status of genes may be utilized as a potential source of information on both types of tumors.

Commonality and differences of methylation signatures in the plasma of patients with pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer / J. Melson, Y. Li, E. Cassinotti, A. Melnikov, L. Boni, J. Ai, M. Greenspan, S. Mobarhan, V. Levenson, Y. Deng. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0020-7136. - 134:11(2014), pp. 2656-2662. [10.1002/ijc.28593]

Commonality and differences of methylation signatures in the plasma of patients with pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer

E. Cassinotti;L. Boni;
2014

Abstract

Profiling of DNA methylation status of specific genes is a way to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) and pancreatic cancer (PC) in blood. The commonality of methylation status of cancer-related tumor suppressor genes between CRC and PC is largely unknown. Methylation status of 56 cancer-related genes was compared in plasma of patients in the following cohorts: CRC, PC and healthy controls. Cross validation determined the best model by area under ROC curve (AUC) to differentiate cancer methylation profiles from controls. Optimal preferential gene methylation signatures were derived to differentiate either cancer (CRC or PC) from controls. For CRC alone, a three gene signature (CYCD2, HIC and VHL) had an AUC 0.9310, sensitivity (Sens) = 0.826, specificity (Spec) = 0.9383. For PC alone, an optimal signature consisted of five genes (VHL, MYF3, TMS, GPC3 and SRBC), AUC 0.848; Sens = 0.807, Spec = 0.666. Combined PC and CRC signature or "combined cancer signature" was derived to differentiate either CRC and PC from controls (MDR1, SRBC, VHL, MUC2, RB1, SYK and GPC3) AUC = 0.8177, Sens = 0.6316 Spec = 0.840. In a validation cohort, N = 10 CRC patients, the optimal CRC signature (CYCD2, HIC and VHL) had AUC 0.900. In all derived signatures (CRC, PC and combined cancer signature) the optimal panel used preferential VHL methylation. In conclusion, CRC and PC differ in specific genes methylated in plasma other than VHL. Preferential methylation of VHL is shared in the optimal signature for CRC alone, PC alone and combined PC and CRC. Future investigations may identify additional methylation markers informative for the presence of both CRC and PC. What's new The potential use of the methylation status of cancer-related genes as a biomarker for plasma-based screening is an area of investigation for both pancreatic and colorectal cancer. While there is evidence that pancreatic and colorectal cancer may share methylation markers - which might enable concomitant and non-invasive screening - how similar their methylation profiles is remains unknown. Here, the authors defined the best methylation signature for both pancreatic and colorectal cancer and identified VHL as a shared optimal marker. The findings suggest that the methylation status of genes may be utilized as a potential source of information on both types of tumors.
Biomarkers; Cancer Screening; Colorectal Cancer; Epigenetics; Methylation; Pancreatic Cancer; Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Area Under Curve; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Case-Control Studies; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; DNA Methylation; Cancer Research; Oncology
Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale
2014
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Commonality and differences of methylation signatures.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 203.5 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
203.5 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/521691
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 21
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 20
social impact