Dataset Information

PUM1 and RNase P genes as potential cell-free DNA markers in breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is used in clinical research to identify biomarkers for diagnosis of and follow-up on cancer. Here, we propose a fast and innovative approach using traditional housekeeping genes as cfDNA targets in a copy number analysis. We focus on the application of highly sensitive technology such as digital PCR (dPCR) to differentiate breast cancer (BC) patients and controls by quantifying regions of PUM1 and RPPH1 (RNase P) in plasma samples.

Methods

We conducted a case-control study with 82 BC patients and 82 healthy women. cfDNA was isolated from plasma using magnetic beads and quantified by spectrophotometry to estimate total cfDNA. Then, both PUM1 and RPPH1 genes were specifically quantified by dPCR. Data analysis was calibrated using a reference genomic DNA in different concentrations.

Results

We found RNase P and PUM1 values were correlated in the patient group (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.842), but they did not have any correlation in healthy women (ICC = 0.519). In dPCR quantification, PUM1 showed the capacity to distinguish early-stage patients and controls with good specificity (98.67%) and sensitivity (100%). Conversely, RNase P had lower cfDNA levels in triple-negative BC patients than luminal subtypes (p < 0.025 for both), confirming their utility for patient classification.

Conclusion

We propose the PUM1 gene as a cfDNA marker for early diagnosis of BC and RNase P as a cfDNA marker related to hormonal status and subtype classification in BC. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Murillo Carrasco A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059717 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Mammography is used to detect breast cancer (BC), but its sensitivity is limited, especially for dense breasts. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation tests is expected to compensate for the deficiency of mammography. We derived a specific panel of markers based on computational analysis of the DNA methylation profiles from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Through training (n = 160) and validation set (n = 69), we developed a diagnostic prediction model with 26 markers, which yielded a sensitivity of 89.37% and a specificity of 100% for differentiating malignant disease from normal lesions [AUROC = 0.9816 (95% CI: 96.09-100%), and AUPRC = 0.9704 (95% CI: 94.54-99.46%)]. A simplified 4-marker model including cg23035715, cg16304215, cg20072171, and cg21501525 had a similar diagnostic power [AUROC = 0.9796 (95% CI: 95.56-100%), and AUPRC = 0.9220 (95% CI: 91.02-94.37%)]. We found that a single cfDNA methylation marker, cg23035715, has a high diagnostic power [AUROC = 0.9395 (95% CI: 89.72-99.27%), and AUPRC = 0.9111 (95% CI: 88.45-93.76%)], with a sensitivity of 84.90% and a specificity of 93.88%. In an independent testing dataset (n = 104), the obtained diagnostic prediction model discriminated BC patients from normal controls with high accuracy [AUROC = 0.9449 (95% CI: 90.07-98.91%), and AUPRC = 0.8640 (95% CI: 82.82-89.98%)]. We compared the diagnostic power of cfDNA methylation and mammography. Our model yielded a sensitivity of 94.79% (95% CI: 78.72-97.87%) and a specificity of 98.70% (95% CI: 86.36-100%) for differentiating malignant disease from normal lesions [AUROC = 0.9815 (95% CI: 96.75-99.55%), and AUPRC = 0.9800 (95% CI: 96.6-99.4%)], with better diagnostic power and had better diagnostic power than that of using mammography [AUROC = 0.9315 (95% CI: 89.95-96.34%), and AUPRC = 0.9490 (95% CI: 91.7-98.1%)]. In addition, hypermethylation profiling provided insights into lymph node metastasis stratifications (p < 0.05). In conclusion, we developed and tested a cfDNA methylation model for BC diagnosis with better performance than mammography.