Recurrent cervical cancer detection using DNA methylation markers in self-collected samples from home.

Early detection of recurrent cervical cancer is important to improve survival rates. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical performance of DNA methylation markers and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervicovaginal self-samples and urine for the detection of recurrent cervical cancer. Cervical cancer patients without recurrence (n = 47) collected cervicovaginal self-samples and urine pre- and posttreatment. Additionally, 20 patients with recurrent cervical cancer collected cervicovaginal self-samples and urine at time of recurrence. All samples were self-collected at home and tested for DNA methylation and high-risk HPV DNA by PCR. In patients without recurrent cervical cancer, DNA methylation levels decreased 2-years posttreatment compared to pretreatment in cervicovaginal self-samples (p < .0001) and urine (p < .0001). DNA methylation positivity in cervicovaginal self-samples was more frequently observed in patients with recurrence (77.8%) than in patients without recurrence 2-years posttreatment (25.5%; p = .0004). Also in urine, DNA methylation positivity was more frequently observed in patients with recurrence (65%) compared to those without recurrence (35.6%; p = .038). Similarly, high-risk HPV positivity in both cervicovaginal self-samples and urine was more frequent (52.6% and 55%, respectively) in patients with recurrence compared to patients without recurrence (14.9% and 8.5%, respectively) (p = .004 and p = .0001). In conclusion, this study shows the potential of posttreatment monitoring of cervical cancer patients for recurrence by DNA methylation and high-risk HPV testing in cervicovaginal and urine samples collected at home. The highest recurrence detection rate was achieved by DNA methylation testing in cervicovaginal self-samples, detecting 77.8% of all recurrences and, specifically, 100% of the local recurrences.

DNA methylation testing for endometrial cancer detection in urine, cervicovaginal self-samples and cervical scrapes.

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.

Molecular analysis for ovarian cancer detection in patient-friendly samples.

BACKGROUND: High ovarian cancer mortality rates motivate the development of effective and patient-friendly diagnostics. Here, we explored the potential of molecular testing in patient-friendly samples for ovarian cancer detection. METHODS: Home-collected urine, cervicovaginal self-samples, and clinician-taken cervical scrapes were prospectively collected from 54 patients diagnosed with a highly suspicious ovarian mass (benign n = 25, malignant n = 29). All samples were tested for nine methylation markers, using quantitative methylation-specific PCRs that were verified on ovarian tissue samples, and compared to non-paired patient-friendly samples of 110 age-matched healthy controls. Copy number analysis was performed on a subset of urine samples of ovarian cancer patients by shallow whole-genome sequencing. RESULTS: Three methylation markers are significantly elevated in full void urine of ovarian cancer patients as compared to healthy controls (C2CD4D, P = 0.008; CDO1, P = 0.022; MAL, P = 0.008), of which two are also discriminatory in cervical scrapes (C2CD4D, P = 0.001; CDO1, P = 0.004). When comparing benign and malignant ovarian masses, GHSR shows significantly elevated methylation levels in the urine sediment of ovarian cancer patients (P = 0.024). Other methylation markers demonstrate comparably high methylation levels in benign and malignant ovarian masses. Cervicovaginal self-samples show no elevated methylation levels in patients with ovarian masses as compared to healthy controls. Copy number changes are identified in 4 out of 23 urine samples of ovarian cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals increased methylation levels of ovarian cancer-associated genes and copy number aberrations in the urine of ovarian cancer patients. Our findings support continued research into urine biomarkers for ovarian cancer detection and highlight the importance of including benign ovarian masses in future studies to develop a clinically useful test.

Ovarian cancer is often found late with limited treatment options. Currently, it is difficult to diagnose ovarian cancer correctly and no recommended early detection or screening methods exist. Our aim was to explore the use of DNA-based tests in patient-friendly samples for ovarian cancer detection. Patient-friendly samples are patient materials that can be collected from home without pain or discomfort, such as self-collected vaginal swabs and urine. Using DNA-based tests, we found that urine of women with ovarian cancer contains ovarian cancer-associated signals. Our findings encourage further development of a potential urine test for ovarian cancer detection. This approach could aid early detection and guide women with ovarian masses to appropriate specialist care.

Experiences and preferences towards collecting a urine and cervicovaginal self-sample among women attending a colposcopy clinic.

The effectiveness of cervical cancer screening is hampered by low attendance rates. The collection of a urine sample is hypothesized to engage non-attenders in cervical cancer screening. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate experiences of women on urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling in a home-based setting and preferences for future cervical cancer screening. This study included 140 women, with a median age of 40 years, who were planned for a large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) procedure. All women collected a urine sample using conventional urine cups and a cervicovaginal self-sample prior to the LLETZ in a home-based setting. Following sample collection, women filled in a questionnaire. Results showed that the instructions of urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling were considered clear (95%, 95%CI: 88-98; 92%, 95%CI: 83-96, respectively). Women considered urine collection compared to cervicovaginal self-sampling to be more acceptable (p < 0.001), and to provide more reliable results (p < 0.001). The three highest reported preferred sampling methods for future cervical cancer screening were: urine collection (n = 39, 28%, 95%CI: 19-39), clinician-taken cervical scrape (n = 32, 23%, 95%CI: 15-34), and equal preference for urine collection, clinician-taken cervical scrape and cervicovaginal self-sampling (n = 30, 21%, 95%CI: 14-32). In conclusion, urine collection and cervicovaginal self-sampling are acceptable sampling methods, considered easy to collect in a home-based setting, and moreover, considered trustworthy. Although these results are promising, more research is required to determine if urine collection also lowers the barrier for non-attendees and, thereby, increases the attendance rates of cervical cancer screening.

HPV and DNA Methylation Testing in Urine for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cervical Cancer Detection.

PURPOSE: Biomarker detection in urine offers a potential solution to increase effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs by attracting nonresponders. In this prospective study, the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA and the performance of DNA methylation analysis was determined for the detection of cervical cancer and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) in urine, and compared with paired cervicovaginal self-samples and clinician-taken cervical scrapes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A total of 587 samples were included from 113 women with cervical cancer, 92 women with CIN2/3, and 64 controls. Samples were tested for hrHPV DNA and five methylation markers. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and leave-one-out cross-validation were used to determine the methylation marker performance for CIN3 and cervical cancer (CIN3+) detection in urine. Agreement between samples was determined using Cohen kappa statistics and the Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: HrHPV presence was high in all sample types, 79% to 92%. Methylation levels of all markers in urine significantly increased with increasing severity of disease. The optimal marker panel (ASCL1/LHX8) resulted in an AUC of 0.84 for CIN3+ detection in urine, corresponding to an 86% sensitivity at a 70% predefined specificity. At this threshold 96% (109/113) of cervical cancers, 68% (46/64) of CIN3, and 58% (14/24) of CIN2 were detected. Between paired samples, a strong agreement for HPV16/18 genotyping and a fair to strong correlation for methylation was found. CONCLUSIONS: HrHPV DNA and DNA methylation testing in urine offers a promising solution to detect cervical cancer and CIN2/3 lesions, especially for women currently unreached by conventional screening methods.

The Origin of Tumor DNA in Urine of Urogenital Cancer Patients: Local Shedding and Transrenal Excretion.

In urogenital cancers, urine as a liquid biopsy for non-invasive cancer detection holds great promise for future clinical application. Their anatomical position allows for the local shedding of tumor DNA, but recent data indicate that tumor DNA in urine might also result from transrenal excretion. This study aims to assess the origin of tumor-associated DNA in the urine of 5 bladder and 25 cervical cancer patients. Besides natural voided urine, paired urine samples were collected in which contact with the local tumor was circumvented to bypass local shedding. The latter concerned nephrostomy urine in bladder cancer patients, and catheter urine in cervical cancer patients. Methylation levels of GHSR, SST, and ZIC1 were determined using paired bladder tumor tissues and cervical scrapes as a reference. Urinary methylation levels were compared to natural voided urine of matched controls. To support methylation results, mutation analysis was performed in urine and tissue samples of bladder cancer patients. Increased methylation levels were not only found in natural voided urine from bladder and cervical cancer patients, but also in the corresponding nephrostomy and catheter urine. DNA mutations detected in bladder tumor tissues were also detectable in all paired natural voided urine as well as in a subset of nephrostomy urine. These results provide the first evidence that the suitability of urine as a liquid biopsy for urogenital cancers relies both on the local shedding of tumor cells and cell fragments, as well as the transrenal excretion of tumor DNA into the urine.

Non-invasive detection of endometrial cancer by DNA methylation analysis in urine.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of endometrial cancer is rising, and current diagnostics often require invasive biopsy procedures. Urine may offer an alternative sample type, which is easily accessible and allows repetitive self-sampling at home. Here, we set out to investigate the feasibility of endometrial cancer detection in urine using DNA methylation analysis. RESULTS: Urine samples of endometrial cancer patients (n = 42) and healthy controls (n = 46) were separated into three fractions (full void urine, urine sediment, and urine supernatant) and tested for three DNA methylation markers (GHSR, SST, ZIC1). Strong to very strong correlations (r = 0.77-0.92) were found amongst the different urine fractions. All DNA methylation markers showed increased methylation levels in patients as compared to controls, in all urine fractions. The highest diagnostic potential for endometrial cancer detection in urine was found in full void urine, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values ranging from 0.86 to 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrates, for the first time, that DNA methylation analysis in urine could provide a non-invasive alternative for the detection of endometrial cancer. Further investigation is warranted to validate its clinical usefulness. Potential applications of this diagnostic approach include the screening of asymptomatic women, triaging women with postmenopausal bleeding symptoms, and monitoring women with increased endometrial cancer risk.

Methylation analysis in urine fractions for optimal CIN3 and cervical cancer detection.

INTRODUCTION: Urine sampling is an interesting solution for CIN3 and cervical cancer detection. Urine can be separated in different fractions: full void urine, urine sediment and urine supernatant. We aimed to determine which urine fraction is most competent for CIN3 and cervical cancer detection by methylation analysis. METHODS: Urine samples (27 controls, 30 CIN3 and 17 cervical cancer) were processed into 3 fractions and tested for 5 methylation markers (ASCL1, GHSR, LHX8, SST, ZIC1). We determined Spearman correlation coefficients between fractions, compared methylation levels and calculated AUCs for CIN3 and cancer detection. RESULTS: In general strong correlations (r > 0.60) were found between urine fractions. Methylation levels increased significantly with severity of underlying disease in all urine fractions. CIN3 and controls differed significantly for 2 markers in full void urine, 4 markers in urine sediment and 1 marker in urine supernatant, with AUCs of 0.55-0.79. Comparison of cancer to controls was highly significant for all markers in all fractions, yielding AUCs of 0.87-0.99. CONCLUSION: Methylation analysis performs excellent in all urine fractions for cervical cancer detection. Our results indicate the potential of CIN3 detection by urinary methylation analysis, and demonstrate that urine sediment performs best to detect CIN3.