Enhanced Performance of DNA Methylation Markers by Simultaneous Measurement of Sense and Antisense DNA Strands after Cytosine Conversion.

BACKGROUND: Most existing DNA methylation-based methods for detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are based on conversion of unmethylated cytosines to uracil. After conversion, the 2 DNA strands are no longer complementary; therefore, targeting only 1 DNA strand merely utilizes half of the available input DNA. We investigated whether the sensitivity of methylation-based ctDNA detection strategies could be increased by targeting both DNA strands after bisulfite conversion. METHODS: Dual-strand digital PCR assays were designed for the 3 colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific methylation markers KCNQ5, C9orf50, and CLIP4 and compared with previously reported single-strand assays. Performance was tested in tumor and leukocyte DNA, and the ability to detect ctDNA was investigated in plasma from 43 patients with CRC stages I to IV and 42 colonoscopy-confirmed healthy controls. RESULTS: Dual-strand assays quantified close to 100% of methylated control DNA input, whereas single-strand assays quantified approximately 50%. Furthermore, dual-strand assays showed a 2-fold increase in the number of methylated DNA copies detected when applied to DNA purified from tumor tissue and plasma from CRC patients. When the results of the 3 DNA methylation markers were combined into a ctDNA detection test and applied to plasma, the dual-strand assay format detected 86% of the cancers compared with 74% for the single-strand assay format. The specificity was 100% for both the dual- and single-strand test formats. CONCLUSION: Dual-strand assays enabled more sensitive detection of methylated ctDNA than single-strand assays.

Development of blood-based biomarker tests for early detection of colorectal neoplasia: Influence of blood collection timing and handling procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers are susceptible to a variety of well-known preanalytical factors. The influence of bowel preparation before a diagnostic colonoscopy on biomarker levels is, however, poorly investigated. The present study assessed the influence of bowel preparation on colorectal cancer-associated biomarkers. In addition, the effect of single versus double centrifugation of plasma biomarkers was assessed. METHODS: Blood samples were collected pre- and post-bowel preparation from 125 subjects scheduled for first time diagnostic colonoscopy due to symptoms attributable to CRC. The samples were separated into serum and EDTA plasma, and analyzed by four independent collaborators for: 1) the proteins AFP, CA19-9, CEA, hs-CRP, CyFra21-1, Ferritin, Galectin-3 and TIMP-1, 2) the proteins BAG4, IL6ST, vWF, CD44 and EGFR, 3) the glycoprotein Galectin-3 ligand, and 4) cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Statistical analysis of biomarker data has been performed using mixed modelling, including repeated measures. RESULTS: The biomarkers generally showed negligible variation between pre- and post-bowel preparation except for CyFra21-1, Ferritin, BAG4 and cfDNA. CyFra21-1 levels were systematically reduced with 29% (95% CI 21-36%) by bowel preparation (p ≤ 0.0001). Ferritin was not significantly different between pre- and post-bowel preparation (p = 0.07), however the estimated difference (increase) was 18%. BAG4 was systematically reduced by 12% (95% CI 1-22%, p = 0.04), while cfDNA showed a significant increase of 28% (95% CI 17-39%, p < 0.0001). Double centrifugation compared to single centrifugation showed reduced vWF (ratio 0.86, p ≤ 0.0001) and CD44 (ratio 0.85, p = 0.016), but increased IL6ST levels (ratio 1.18, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study demonstrated systematic, statistically significant differences between pre-bowel and post-bowel preparation levels for three independent blood-based biomarkers (BAG4, CyFra21-1, cfDNA), illustrating the importance of timing of sample collection for biomarker analyses.