Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33478584›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2021

Evaluation of a panel of tumor-specific differentially-methylated DNA regions in IRF4, IKZF1 and BCAT1 for blood-based detection of colorectal cancer.

Graeme P Young, Erin L Symonds, Hans Jørgen Nielsen, Linnea Ferm, Ib J Christensen, Evelien Dekker, Manon van der Vlugt, Rosalie C Mallant-Hent, Nicky Boulter, Betty Yu and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Performance of Plasma Multigene Methylation Testing in Early Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Graeme P YoungFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Erin L SymondsFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Hans Jørgen NielsenDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Linnea FermDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Ib J ChristensenDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon van der VlugtDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rosalie C Mallant-HentDepartment of Gastroenterology, Flevo Hospital, Almere, The Netherlands.
Nicky BoulterClinical Genomics Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
Betty YuClinical Genomics Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
Michelle ChanClinical Genomics Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
Gregor TevzClinical Genomics Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
Lawrence C LaPointeClinical Genomics Technologies Ltd, Edison, USA.
Susanne K PedersenClinical Genomics Pty Ltd, North Ryde, NSW, Australia. susanne.pedersen@clinicalgenomics.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5518-1959
University of Copenhagen · DKAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLFlinders University · AUID Genomics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentially-methylated regions (DMRs) are characteristic of colorectal cancer (CRC) and some occur more frequently than common mutations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of assaying circulating cell-free DNA for methylation in BCAT1, IKZF1 and IRF4 for detection of CRC.

methodsA multiplexed real-time PCR assay targeting DMRs in each of the three genes was developed. Assay accuracy was explored in plasma specimens banked from observational cross-sectional trials or from volunteers scheduled for colonoscopy or prior to CRC surgery.

results1620 specimens were suitable for study inclusion including 184 and 616 cases with CRC and adenomas, respectively, and 820 cases without neoplasia (overall median age, 63.0 years; 56% males). Combining the PCR signals for all targeted DMRs returned the best sensitivity for CRC (136/184, 73.9%, 95% CI 67.1-79.7), advanced adenomas (53/337, 15.7%, 95% CI 12.0-20.1) and high-grade dysplastic (HGD) adenomas (9/35, 25.7%, 95% CI 14.0-42.3) with a 90.1%, specificity for neoplasia (739/820, 95% CI 87.9-92.0, p < 0.01). Detection of methylation in all three genes were more likely in CRC cases than those without it (OR 28.5, 95% CI 7.3-121.2, p < 0.0001). Of the 81 positive cases without neoplasia, 62 (76.5%) were positive by a single PCR replicate only and predominantly due to detection of methylated BCAT1 (53.2%). Single replicate positivity was significantly higher than that in CRC (26/136, 19.1%, p < 0.0001), and single BCAT1 replicate positivity was more likely in cases without neoplasia than in CRC (OR 17.7, 95% CI 6.6-43.3, p < 0.0001). When a positive result was limited to those with ≥ 1 PCR replicate positive for either IKZF1 or IRF4, or at least two replicates positive for BCAT1, the multi-panel test maintained a high sensitivity for CRC (131/184, 71.2%, 95% CI 64.3-77.3) and HGD adenomas (8/35, 22.9%, 95% CI 11.8-39.3, p = 0.029) but improved specificity significantly (772/820, 94.1%, 95% CI 92.3-95.6, p < 0.0001 vs. any PCR replicate positive).

conclusionThe multi-panel methylation assay differentiates cases with CRC from those without it and does so with high specificity when criteria for BCAT1 detection are applied. The marker panel is flexible and studies in those at average risk for CRC are now warranted to determine which panel configuration best suits screening goals.

trial registrationACTRN12611000318987. Registered 25 March 2011, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ ACTRN12611000318987.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDNA, NeoplasmFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorDNA, NeoplasmBCAT1Colorectal cancer screeningIKZF1IRF4Methylated circulating tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID33478584
PMCPMC7818774
OpenAlexW3122536723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.