Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33536049›Full record

ArticleClinical epigenetics2021

Discovery and validation of methylation signatures in blood-based circulating tumor cell-free DNA in early detection of colorectal carcinoma: a case-control study.

Jinke Sui, Xianrui Wu, Chenyang Wang, Guoqiang Wang, Chengcheng Li, Jing Zhao, Yuzi Zhang, Jianxing Xiang, Yu Xu, Weiqi Nian and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Circulating cell-free DNA for cancer early detection.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Dynamic liquid biopsy components as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jinke Sui *Colorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Xianrui Wu *Colorectal Surgery Department, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Yuancun Erheng Road No. 26, Guangzhou, 510655, China.
Chenyang WangBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Guoqiang WangBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Chengcheng LiBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Jing ZhaoBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Yuzi ZhangBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Jianxing XiangBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Yu XuBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Weiqi NianPhase I Ward, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China.
Fuao CaoColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Guanyu YuColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Zheng LouColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Liqiang HaoColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Lianjie LiuColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Bingsi LiBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Zhihong ZhangBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Shangli CaiBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Hao LiuBurning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China.
Ping LanColorectal Surgery Department, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Yuancun Erheng Road No. 26, Guangzhou, 510655, China. lanping@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Wei ZhangColorectal Surgery Department, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Changhai Road No.168, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. weizhang2000cn@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3094-9711
Burning Rock Biotech (China) · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNChongqing University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) would help to identify tumors when curative treatments are available and beneficial. However, current screening methods for CRC, e.g., colonoscopy, may affect patients' compliance due to the uncomfortable, invasive and time-consuming process. In recent decades, methylation profiles of blood-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results in the early detection of multiple tumors. Here we conducted a study to investigate the performance of ctDNA methylation markers in early detection of CRC.

resultsIn total, 742 participants were enrolled in the study including CRC (n = 332), healthy control (n = 333), benign colorectal disease (n = 65) and advanced adenoma (n = 12). After age-matched and randomization, 298 participants (149 cancer and 149 healthy control) were included in training set and 141 (67 cancer and 74 healthy control) were in test set. In the training set, the specificity was 89.3% (83.2-93.7%) and the sensitivity was 88.6% (82.4-93.2%). In terms of different stages, the sensitivities were 79.4% (62.1-91.2%) in patients with stage I, 88.9% (77.3-95.8%) in patients with stage II, 91.4% (76.9-98.2%) in patients with stage III and 96.2% (80.3-99.9%) in patients with stage IV. Similar results were validated in the test set with the specificity of 91.9% (83.1-97.0%) and sensitivity of 83.6% (72.5-91.6%). Sensitivities for stage I-III were 87.0% (79.7-92.4%) in the training set and 82.5% (70.2-91.3%) in the test set, respectively. In the unmatched total population, the positive ratios were 7.8% (5.2-11.2%) in healthy control, 30.8% (19.9-43.5%) in benign colorectal disease and 58.3% (27.5-84.7%) in advanced adenoma, while the sensitivities of stage I-IV were similar with training and test sets. Compared with methylated SEPT9 model, the present model had higher sensitivity (87.0% [81.8-91.2%] versus 41.2% [34.6-48.1%], P < 0.001) under comparable specificity (90.1% [85.4-93.7%] versus 90.6% [86.0-94.1%]).

conclusionsTogether our findings showed that ctDNA methylation markers were promising in the early detection of CRC. Further validation of this model is warranted in prospective studies.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesCirculating Tumor DNAColorectal NeoplasmsDNA MethylationEarly Detection of CancerEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAColorectal carcinomactDNAEarly detectionMethylation

Identifiers

PMID33536049
PMCPMC7856810
OpenAlexW3126974743

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.