Non-invasive detection and classification of lymphoma via cell-free DNA methylation profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".