Abstract A62: Clinical translation of liquid biopsy DNA methylation biomarkers: Lessons from two systematic reviews

Background: Very few (<0.1%) of DNA methylation biomarkers are eventually translated into clinical practice, even though over 5,000 have been published over the last decades. In an attempt to create an overview of the current evidence on these markers, we performed two systematic reviews on diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers in liquid biopsies, for colorectal cancer (CRC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (1). Here, we present the evidence of these systematic reviews and provide novel recommendations to improve the current clinical translation of DNA methylation biomarkers.

Methods: For CRC, we identified 109 bodily fluid biomarker studies published before January 2019 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, or Google Scholar. For RCC, we identified 6 liquid biopsy studies up to January 2019 in these databases. Data extraction (study design, patient characteristics, disease stage, tumor location, technical assays, diagnostic measures) was performed on published reports. STARD criteria and Level of Evidence (LoE) were registered to assess reporting quality and strength for clinical translation, and forest plots were generated to summarize diagnostic performance of the biomarkers.

Findings: Our systematic literature search revealed multiple issues that hamper the development of DNA methylation biomarkers for RCC and CRC diagnosis, including methodologic and technical heterogeneity and lack of validation or clinical translation. Among the most important issues were a lack of translation from tissue into liquid biopsy; for CRC 88/389 (23%) CRC markers were studied in liquid biopsies, and for RCC these numbers were 15/44 (34%). In addition, results showed a lack of independent validation, with 37/88 (42%) CRC markers and 9/15 (60%) RCC markers in liquid biopsies studied in more than one study or study population. Also, inappropriate marker identification and primer design, lack of true clinical need definition, and low reporting quality were issues that were recognized in our systematic literature searches. These issues all hamper the development of the field, keep the LoE low, and hinder the translation of DNA methylation biomarkers into clinical tests.

Interpretation: Our systematic literature searches revealed that major requirements to develop clinically relevant diagnostic DNA methylation markers are often lacking. To avoid the resulting research waste, clinical needs, intended biomarker use, and independent validation should be better considered prior to study design. In addition, improved reporting quality would facilitate meta-analysis, thereby increasing LoE and enabling clinical translation.

Reference: 1. Lommen et al. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.07.011.

Citation Format: Kim Lommen, Zheng Feng, Cary J.G. Oberije, Alouisa J. P. van de Wetering, Selena Odeh, Alexander Koch, Maureen J. B. Aarts, Joep G. van Roermund, Leo J. Schouten, Egbert Oosterwijk, Nathalie Vaes, Ad A. M. Masclee, Beatriz Carvalho, Gerrit A. Meijer, Maurice P. Zeegers, James G. Herman, Vivianne C. Tjan-Heijnen, Veerle Melotte, Manon van Engeland, Kim Smits. Clinical translation of liquid biopsy DNA methylation biomarkers: Lessons from two systematic reviews [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Advances in Liquid Biopsies; Jan 13-16, 2020; Miami, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(11_Suppl):Abstract nr A62.

Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly.

METHODS

We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our user-base consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/ .

CONCLUSIONS

User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.

Prognostic DNA methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review

AIM

Despite numerous published prognostic methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), none of these have yet changed patient management. Our aim is to systematically review and evaluate the literature on prognostic DNA methylation markers for RCC.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We conducted an exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE up to April 2017 and identified 49 publications. Studies were reviewed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, assessed for their reporting quality using the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) criteria, and were graded to determine the level of evidence (LOE) for each biomarker.

RESULTS

We identified promoter methylation of BNC1, SCUBE3, GATA5, SFRP1, GREM1, RASSF1A, PCDH8, LAD1 and NEFH as promising prognostic markers. Extensive methodological heterogeneity across the included studies was observed, which hampers comparability and reproducibility of results, providing a possible explanation why these biomarkers do not reach the clinic.

CONCLUSION

Potential prognostic methylation markers for RCC have been identified, but they require further validation in prospective studies to determine their true clinical value.