4.7 Article

A Panel of Three Markers Hyper- and Hypomethylated in Urine Sediments Accurately Predicts Bladder Cancer Recurrence

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 1978-1989

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2637

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI [RO1 CA083867, RO1 CA124518, RO1 CA097346, P30CA014089]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The high risk of recurrence after transurethral resection of bladder tumor of nonmuscle invasive disease requires lifelong treatment and surveillance. Changes in DNA methylation are chemically stable, occur early during tumorigenesis, and can be quantified in bladder tumors and in cells shed into the urine. Some urine markers have been used to help detect bladder tumors; however, their use in longitudinal tumor recurrence surveillance has yet to be established. Experimental Design: We analyzed the DNA methylation levels of six markers in 368 urine sediment samples serially collected from 90 patients with noninvasive urothelial carcinoma (Tis, Ta, T1; grade low-high). The optimum marker combination was identified using logistic regression with 5-fold cross-validation, and validated in separate samples. Results: A panel of three markers discriminated between patients with and without recurrence with the area under the curve of 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-0.92] and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00), sensitivity and specificity of 86%/89% (95% CI, 74%-99% and 81%-97%) and 80%/97% (95% CI, 60%-96% and 91%-100%) in the testing and validation sets, respectively. The three-marker DNA methylation test reliably predicted tumor recurrence in 80% of patients superior to cytology (35%) and cystoscopy (15%) while accurately forecasting no recurrence in 74% of patients that scored negative in the test. Conclusions: Given their superior sensitivity and specificity in urine sediments, a combination of hyperand hypomethylated markers may help avoid unnecessary invasive exams and reveal the importance of DNA methylation in bladder tumorigenesis. (C)2014 AACR.

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

4.7
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