Wever Birgit M M, van den Helder Rianne, van Splunter Annina P, van Gent Mignon D J M, Kasius Jenneke C, Trum Johannes W, Verhoeve Harold R, van Baal Wilhelmina M, Hulbert Alicia, Verhoef Lisanne, Heideman Daniëlle A M, Lissenberg-Witte Birgit I, van Trommel Nienke E, Steenbergen Renske D M, Bleeker Maaike C G
Department of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cancer Center Amsterdam, Imaging and Biomarkers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Cancer. 2023 Jul 15;153(2):341-351. doi: 10.1002/ijc.34504. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
Endometrial cancer incidence is rising and current diagnostics often require invasive biopsy procedures. DNA methylation marker analysis of minimally- and non-invasive sample types could provide an easy-to-apply and patient-friendly alternative to determine cancer risk. Here, we compared the performance of DNA methylation markers to detect endometrial cancer in urine, cervicovaginal self-samples and clinician-taken cervical scrapes. Paired samples were collected from 103 patients diagnosed with stage I to IV endometrial cancer. Urine and self-samples were collected at home. All samples were tested for nine DNA methylation markers using quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Methylation levels measured in endometrial cancer patients were compared to unpaired samples of 317 healthy controls. Diagnostic performances were evaluated by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis, followed by leave-one-out cross-validation. Each methylation marker showed significantly higher methylation levels in all sample types of endometrial cancer patients compared to healthy controls (P < .01). Optimal three-marker combinations demonstrated excellent diagnostic performances with area under the receiver operating curve values of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98), 0.94 (0.90-0.97) and 0.97 (0.96-0.99), for endometrial cancer detection in urine, self-samples and scrapes, respectively. Sensitivities ranged from 89% to 93% at specificities of 90% to 92%. Virtually equal performances were obtained after cross-validation and excellent diagnostic performances were maintained for stage I endometrial cancer detection. Our study shows the value of methylation analysis in patient-friendly sample types for endometrial cancer detection of all stages. This approach has great potential to screen patient populations at risk for endometrial cancer.
子宫内膜癌的发病率正在上升,目前的诊断方法通常需要进行侵入性活检程序。对微创和非侵入性样本类型进行DNA甲基化标记分析,可以提供一种易于应用且对患者友好的替代方法来确定癌症风险。在此,我们比较了DNA甲基化标记物在尿液、宫颈阴道自我采样样本和临床医生采集的宫颈刮片中检测子宫内膜癌的性能。从103例诊断为I至IV期子宫内膜癌的患者中收集配对样本。尿液和自我采样样本在患者家中采集。所有样本均使用定量甲基化特异性PCR检测9种DNA甲基化标记物。将子宫内膜癌患者中测得的甲基化水平与317名健康对照的非配对样本进行比较。通过单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析评估诊断性能,随后进行留一法交叉验证。与健康对照相比,每种甲基化标记物在子宫内膜癌患者的所有样本类型中均显示出显著更高的甲基化水平(P < 0.01)。最佳的三标记物组合在尿液、自我采样样本和刮片中检测子宫内膜癌时,受试者操作特征曲线下面积值分别为0.95(95%CI:0.92 - 0.98)、0.94(0.90 - 0.97)和0.97(0.96 - 0.99),显示出优异的诊断性能。在特异性为90%至92%时,灵敏度范围为89%至93%。交叉验证后获得了几乎相同的性能,并且在检测I期子宫内膜癌时保持了优异的诊断性能。我们的研究表明,甲基化分析在对所有阶段子宫内膜癌进行检测的患者友好型样本类型中具有价值。这种方法在筛查有子宫内膜癌风险的患者群体方面具有巨大潜力。