Comparison and combination of mutation and methylation-based urine tests for bladder cancer detection
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 combinati...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Biomarker Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-024-00682-x |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2050-7771 |