DNA-methylation signature accurately differentiates pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis in tissue and plasma.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal malignancy. Differentiation from chronic pancreatitis (CP) is currently inaccurate in about one-third of cases. Misdiagnoses in both directions, however, have severe consequences for patients. We set out to identify molecular markers for a clear distinction between PDAC and CP. DESIGN: Genome-wide variations of DNA-methylation, messenger RNA and microRNA level as well as combinations thereof were analysed in 345 tissue samples for marker identification. To improve diagnostic performance, we established a random-forest machine-learning approach. Results were validated on another 48 samples and further corroborated in 16 liquid biopsy samples. RESULTS: Machine-learning succeeded in defining markers to differentiate between patients with PDAC and CP, while low-dimensional embedding and cluster analysis failed to do so. DNA-methylation yielded the best diagnostic accuracy by far, dwarfing the importance of transcript levels. Identified changes were confirmed with data taken from public repositories and validated in independent sample sets. A signature of six DNA-methylation sites in a CpG-island of the protein kinase C beta type gene achieved a validated diagnostic accuracy of 100% in tissue and in circulating free DNA isolated from patient plasma. CONCLUSION: The success of machine-learning to identify an effective marker signature documents the power of this approach. The high diagnostic accuracy of discriminating PDAC from CP could have tremendous consequences for treatment success, once the result from still a limited number of liquid biopsy samples would be confirmed in a larger cohort of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer.

Low level of antioxidant capacity biomarkers but not target overexpression predicts vulnerability to ROS-inducing drugs.

Despite a strong rationale for why cancer cells are susceptible to redox-targeting drugs, such drugs often face tumor resistance or dose-limiting toxicity in preclinical and clinical studies. An important reason is the lack of specific biomarkers to better select susceptible cancer entities and stratify patients. Using a large panel of lung cancer cell lines, we identified a set of "antioxidant-capacity" biomarkers (ACB), which were tightly repressed, partly by STAT3 and STAT5A/B in sensitive cells, rendering them susceptible to multiple redox-targeting and ferroptosis-inducing drugs. Contrary to expectation, constitutively low ACB expression was not associated with an increased steady state level of reactive oxygen species (ROS) but a high level of nitric oxide, which is required to sustain high replication rates. Using ACBs, we identified cancer entities with a high percentage of patients with favorable ACB expression pattern, making it likely that more responders to ROS-inducing drugs could be stratified for clinical trials.

Assessment of modelling strategies for drug response prediction in cell lines and xenografts.

Data from several large high-throughput drug response screens have become available to the scientific community recently. Although many efforts have been made to use this information to predict drug sensitivity, our ability to accurately predict drug response based on genetic data remains limited. In order to systematically examine how different aspects of modelling affect the resulting prediction accuracy, we built a range of models for seven drugs (erlotinib, pacliatxel, lapatinib, PLX4720, sorafenib, nutlin-3 and nilotinib) using data from the largest available cell line and xenograft drug sensitivity screens. We found that the drug response metric, the choice of the molecular data type and the number of training samples have a substantial impact on prediction accuracy. We also compared the tasks of drug response prediction with tissue type prediction and found that, unlike for drug response, tissue type can be predicted with high accuracy. Furthermore, we assessed our ability to predict drug response in four xenograft cohorts (treated either with erlotinib, gemcitabine or paclitaxel) using models trained on cell line data. We could predict response in an erlotinib-treated cohort with a moderate accuracy (correlation ≈ 0.5), but were unable to correctly predict responses in cohorts treated with gemcitabine or paclitaxel.