4.6 Article

Plasma Next Generation Sequencing and Droplet Digital-qPCR-Based Quantification of Circulating Cell-Free RNA for Noninvasive Early Detection of Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers12020353

关键词

liquid biopsy; cfRNA; cancer; ddPCR; NGS; POU6F2-AS2; early detection

类别

资金

  1. European Transcan-2 project CEVIR
  2. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [SI 1549/3-1, RO 3577/7-1, KFO 337]
  4. Wilhelm Sander stiftung [2017.148.1]
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [641458]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early detection of cancer holds high promise for reducing cancer-related mortality. Detection of circulating tumor-specific nucleic acids holds promise, but sensitivity and specificity issues remain with current technology. We studied cell-free RNA (cfRNA) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 56 stage IV, n = 39 stages I-III), pancreatic cancer (PDAC, n = 20 stage III), malignant melanoma (MM, n = 12 stage III-IV), urothelial bladder cancer (UBC, n = 22 stage II and IV), and 65 healthy controls by means of next generation sequencing (NGS) and real-time droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR). We identified 192 overlapping upregulated transcripts in NSCLC and PDAC by NGS, more than 90% of which were noncoding. Previously reported transcripts (e.g., HOTAIRM1) were identified. Plasma cfRNA transcript levels of POU6F2-AS2 discriminated NSCLC from healthy donors (AUC = 0.82 and 0.76 for stages IV and I-III, respectively) and significantly associated (p = 0.017) with the established tumor marker Cyfra 21-1. cfRNA yield and POU6F2-AS transcript abundance discriminated PDAC patients from healthy donors (AUC = 1.0). POU6F2-AS2 transcript was significantly higher in MM (p = 0.044). In summary, our findings support further validation of cfRNA detection by RT-ddPCR as a biomarker for early detection of solid cancers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据