4.7 Article

A novel set of DNA methylation markers in urine sediments for sensitive/specific detection of bladder cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 24, Pages 7296-7304

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0861

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study aims to provide a better set of DNA methylation markers in urine sediments for sensitive and specific detection of bladder cancer. Experimental Design: Fifty-nine tumor-associated genes were profiled in three bladder cancer cell lines, a small cohort of cancer biopsies and urine sediments by methylation-specific PCR. Twenty-one candidate genes were then profiled in urine sediments from 132 bladder cancer patients (8 cases for stage 0a; 68 cases for stage 1; 50 cases for stage 11; 4 cases for stages 111; and 2 cases for stage IV), 23 age-matched patients with noncancerous urinary lesions, 6 neurologic diseases, and 7 healthy volunteers. Results: Despite six incidences of four genes reported in 3 of 23 noncancerous urinary lesion patients analyzed, cancer-specific hypermethylation in urine sediments were reported for 15 genes (P < 0.05). Methylation assessment of an 11-gene set (SALL3, CFTR, ABCC6, HPR1, RASSF1A, MT1A RUNX3, ITGA4, BCL2, ALX4, MYOD1, DRM, CDH13, BMP3B, CCNA1, RPRM, MINT1, and BRCA1) confirmed the existing diagnosis of 121 among 132 bladder cancer cases (sensitivity, 91.7%) with 87% accuracy. Significantly, more than 75% of stage 0a and 88% of stage I disease were detected, indicating its value in the early diagnosis of bladder cancer. Interestingly, the cluster of reported methylation markers used in the U.S. bladder cancers is distinctly different from that identified in this study, suggesting a possible epigenetic disparity between the American and Chinese cases. Conclusions: Methylation profiling of an 11-gene set in urine sediments provides a sensitive and specific detection of bladder cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available