MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403055882 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.01.24314116

Plasma cell-free DNA methylomes for hepatocellular carcinoma detection and monitoring after liver resection or transplantation

2024· preprint· en· W4403055882 on OpenAlexaff
K Chen, Zhihao Li, Bianca O. Kirsh, Ping Luo, Stephanie Pedersen, Roxana Bucur, Nadia Rukavina, Jeffrey P. Bruce, Arnavaz Danesh, Mazdak Riverin, Sandra E. Fischer, Mamatha Bhat, Nazia Selzner, Sonya A. MacParland, Carol-Anne Moulton, Steven Gallinger, Ian D. McGilvray, Mark S. Cattral, Markus Selzner, Trevor Reichman, Chaya Shwaartz, Blayne A. Sayed, Sean P. Cleary, Gonzalo Sapisochín, Anand Ghanekar, Trevor J. Pugh

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiver transplantationHepatocellular carcinomaResectionTransplantationCancer researchMedicineChemistryInternal medicineOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common and lethal malignancies worldwide. HCC diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment decisions rely predominantly on imaging. Curative surgery is limited to those with disease confined to the liver, but recurrence is common. Detection of HCC by mutational profiling of blood plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is limited by mutational heterogeneity and difficulty obtaining tumor tissue to guide targeted gene panels. In contrast, DNA methylation patterns reveal biological processes without need for prior mutational knowledge. We evaluated cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and high-throughput sequencing (cfMeDIP-Seq) for HCC detection and monitoring of recurrence after curative-intent surgery. Methods We identified patients undergoing liver transplantation or resection and collected blood at surgery (baseline) and every 3 months for two years (follow-up). We performed cfMeDIP-Seq followed by machine learning to i) develop an HCC classifier based on 300 differentially methylated regions in a Discovery cohort of 35 living liver donors (healthy controls) and 52 baseline samples from HCC patients; ii) test the classifier in a separate Validation cohort of 37 baseline and 112 follow-up samples from 37 patients; and iii) assign an HCC methylation score (HMS) to samples based on their probability (0.0-1.0) of containing HCC-derived cfDNA. We assessed the relationships between HMS and clinical variables. Results cfMeDIP-Seq to a depth of 101-129 (median 113) million reads per sample succeeded in 201 plasma samples from 89 HCC patients (57 transplant and 32 resection) and 35 healthy controls. In the Discovery cohort, the HCC classifier identified HCC with 97% sensitivity and 99% specificity (mean AUROC = 0.999). In the Validation cohort, the classifier identified HCC with 97% accuracy and HMS distinguished baseline HCC samples, follow-ups with recurrence, follow-ups without recurrence, and controls. Baseline HMS>0.9 was associated with higher recurrence risk in Cox regression (HR 3.43 (95% CI 1.30-9.06), p=0.013). In all patients with follow-up samples, HMS decreased by 3-44% (median 17%) within the first 13 weeks after surgery. Subsequently, HMS trajectory of recurrent and non-recurrent patients diverged, with HMS rise relative to the first post-surgery timepoint associated with clinical recurrence. HMS functioned independently of other clinicopathologic variables. Conclusion Tumor-agnostic cfDNA methylomes accurately detect HCC and predict recurrence after liver resection or transplantation. This approach may have important implications for HCC diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207