MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417015986 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-1748

Non-invasive detection and classification of lymphoma via cell-free DNA methylation profiling

2025· article· en· W4417015986 sur OpenAlexaff
Victoria Shelton, Mohamed Alias, Ting Liu, Davidson Zhao, Pamela Alamilla, Althaf Singhawansa, Michael Hong, Vanessa Murad, Ibrahim Alrekhais, Ur Metser, David Hodgson, Anca Prica, John Kuruvilla, Michael Crump, Bernard Lam, Michael M. Hoffman, Scott V. Bratman, Robert Kridel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensVector InstituteOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDNA methylationLymphomaCpG siteMethylationFollicular lymphomaDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaDNAPredictive value

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Diagnosing lymphoma relies on invasive tissue biopsies, which can yield insufficient material for histopathological evaluation and carry a risk of complications. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis from plasma represents a promising alternative for non-invasive lymphoma diagnosis, as DNA methylation patterns are both highly cell type–specific and characteristically altered in malignancy. We analyzed cfDNA methylation in 265 plasma samples (165 pre-treatment samples from lymphoma patients: 71 DLBCL, 46 FL, 48 HL; 48 non-lymphoma/non-malignant controls; and 52 post-cycle 1 or end-of-treatment [EOT] samples from 15 DLBCL and 12 FL patients) using cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq). Most pre-treatment samples (84.2%) were obtained at diagnosis, and a small number of samples before second-line treatment (15.8%). The pre-treatment cohort was split into discovery (n=142) and validation (n=71) sets for model development and testing. Differential methylation analysis identified 13,934 lymphoma-associated hypermethylated regions, which were used to train regularized binomial generalized linear models. Enrichment analyses revealed these regions overlapped significantly with CpG islands and H3K27me3-marked genes. In the validation cohort, the binary classification model distinguishing lymphoma from controls achieved an accuracy of 0.88, with a positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.88. Subtype-specific models were subsequently developed: the DLBCL vs. control model reached an AUC of 0.96 and accuracy of 0.87 (PPV = 0.91, NPV = 0.84); the FL vs. control model yielded an AUC of 0.82 and accuracy of 0.74 (PPV = 0.82, NPV = 0.69); and the HL vs. control model achieved an AUC of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.96 (PPV = 0.94, NPV = 0.98). Stage-stratified analysis showed high classification performance for both limited and advanced-stage disease. The lymphoma vs. control model achieved AUCs of 0.96 (advanced-stage) and 0.94 (limited-stage). For DLBCL, AUCs were 0.98 and 0.94; for FL, 0.88 and 0.70; and for HL, 0.99 and 0.97, respectively. A three-class model distinguishing controls, HL, and a combined DLBCL/FL group showed robust overall performance. HL classification achieved an AUC of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.89 (PPV = 0.91, NPV = 0.89); the DLBCL/FL group reached an AUC of 0.95 and accuracy of 0.86 (PPV = 0.92, NPV = 0.82); and control classification had an AUC of 0.95 and accuracy of 0.80 (PPV = 0.69, NPV = 0.87). A four-class model distinguishing HL, DLBCL, FL, and controls showed that HL remained the most accurately identified subtype (AUC = 0.99, accuracy = 0.89, PPV = 0.92, NPV = 0.89), followed by DLBCL (AUC = 0.89, accuracy = 0.83) and FL (AUC = 0.80, accuracy = 0.79). DLBCL samples misclassified as FL were enriched for GCB-type mutations in EZH2 and BCL2 and lacked ABC-associated mutations such as TBL1XR1, BTG1, CCND3, and PRDM1. We calculated cfDNA methylation scores by averaging normalized methylation levels across lymphoma-associated hypermethylated regions. These scores were significantly associated with LDH levels (DLBCL: R = 0.53, p = 2.1×10⁻⁶; FL: R = 0.51, p = 2.9×10⁻⁴), IPI in DLBCL (p = 0.0077), FLIPI in FL (p = 9.1×10⁻⁸), cfDNA tumor burden, and metabolic tumor volume from PET-CT. Methylation scores from plasma samples taken after the first immunochemotherapy cycle (15 DLBCL, 10 FL) and at EOT (15 DLBCL, 12 FL) tracked treatment response as conveyed by PET-CT or CT scans. Increasing scores were observed alongside radiographic progression in 2 patients, and a patient with complete radiological response but with a slow declining methylation score post-cycle 1 had early progression 2 months after EOT. Five additional patients with low EOT methylation scores and complete metabolic response experienced either relapse or transformation. Four progression-free patients showed partial radiological response, but had low methylation scores at EOT. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to apply cfMeDIP-seq to plasma samples from lymphoma patients. cfDNA methylation profiling offers a sensitive, minimally invasive approach for lymphoma detection and subtype classification, with high classification performance even in early-stage disease for DLBCL and HL. cfDNA methylation correlates with tumor burden and clinical risk, supporting its potential role as a biomarker for predicting treatment response.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→Travaux en français237 207→