BACKGROUND. Current methods for detecting esophageal cancer (EC) are generally invasive or exhibit limited sensitivity and specificity, especially for the identification of early-stage tumors. METHODS. We identified potential methylated DNA markers (MDM) from multiple genomic regions in a discovery cohort and a diagnostic model was developed and verified in a model-verification cohort of 297 participants. The accuracy of the MDM panel was validated in a multicenter, prospective cohort (n = 1429). The clinical performance of identified MDMs were compared with current tumor-associated protein markers. RESULTS. From 31 significant differentially methylated EC-associated regions identified in the marker discovery, we trained and validated a 3-MDM diagnostic model that could discriminate among EC patients and Non-EC volunteers in a multicenter clinical prospective cohort with a sensitivity of 85.5% and a specificity of 95.3%. This panel showed higher sensitivity in diagnosing early-stage tumors, with sensitivities of 56% for Stage 0 and 77% for Stage I, comparing with the performance of current biochemical markers. In population with high risk for EC, the sensitivity and specificity are 85.68% and 93.61% respectively. CONCLUSION. The assessment of tumor-associated methylation status in blood samples can facilitate non-invasive, and reliable diagnosis of early-stage EC, which warrants further development to expand screening and reduce mortality rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER. ChiCTR2400083525.
Ruixiang Zhang, Yongzhan Nie, Xiaobing Chen, Tao Jiang, Jinhai Wang, Yuhui Peng, Guangpeng Zhou, Yong Li, Lina Zhao, Beibei Chen, Yunfeng Ni, Yan Cheng, Yiwei Xu, Zhenyu Zhu, Xianchun Gao, Zhen Wu, Tianbao Li, Jie Zhao, Cantong Liu, Gang Zhao, Jiakuan Chen, Jing Zhao, Gang Ji, Xiaoliang Han, Jie He, Yin Li
Usage data is cumulative from February 2025 through February 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 181 | 0 |
126 | 0 | |
Supplemental data | 107 | 0 |
Totals | 414 | 0 |
Total Views | 414 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.