Lessons from a systematic literature search on diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer: how to increase research value and decrease research waste

Feng, Zheng; Oberije, Cary; Wetering, Alouisa J. P. van de; Koch, Alexander; Vaes, Kim A D Wouters Nathalie; Masclee, Ad; Carvalho, Beatriz; Meijer, Gerrit A.; Herman, James G.; Melotte, Veerle; Engeland, Manon van; Smits, Kim M.

doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000499

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, selection bias due to differences between participants and non-participants of the HUNT study can not be ruled out [ 38 ]. Finally, we have used the STARD guidelines to increase the research value in a field hampered by a lack of clinical translation much due to weaknesses in methodological design and reporting of findings [ 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colorectal cancer detected by liquid biopsy 2 years prior to clinical diagnosis in the HUNT study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is often diagnosed in advanced stages. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has been proposed as an early diagnostic biomarker. However, as a screening tool, ctDNA has mainly been studied in selected populations at the time of clinical diagnosis. The aim of this study was to detect CRC by known ctDNA markers up to 2 years prior to clinical diagnosis. Methods In this case–control study, methylated ctDNA markers were detected in plasma samples from 106 healthy controls and 106 individuals diagnosed with CRC within 24 months following participation in The Trøndelag Health Study. Results The most specific single markers were BMP3, FLI1, IKZF1, SFRP1, SFRP2, NPTX2, SLC8A1 and VIM (specificity >70%). When combining these into a panel, the CRC sensitivity was 43% (95% CI 42.7–43.4) and the CRC specificity was 86% (95% CI 85.7–86.2). The findings were reproduced in an independent validation set of samples. Conclusions Detection of known methylated ctDNA markers of CRC is possible up to 2 years prior to the clinical diagnosis in an unselected population resembling the screening setting. This study supports the hypothesis that some patients could be diagnosed earlier, if ctDNA detection was part of the CRC screening programme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colorectal cancer detected by liquid biopsy 2 years prior to clinical diagnosis in the HUNT study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as the third major contributor to cancer-related fatalities across the globe [ 1 ]. The occurrence rate of CRC is on the decline due to timely detection and swift elimination of pre-cancerous lesions; however, the outlook remains unfavorable for advanced and metastatic stages of CRC [ 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

AURKB promotes colorectal cancer progression by triggering the phosphorylation of histone H3 at serine 10 to activate CCNE1 expression

Li,

Xie,

Xie

et al. 2024

Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aurora kinase B (AURKB) initiates the phosphorylation of serine 10 on histone H3 (pH3S10), a crucial process for chromosome condensation and cytokinesis in mammalian mitosis. Nonetheless, the precise mechanisms through which AURKB regulates the cell cycle and contributes to tumorigenesis as an oncogenic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC) remain unclear. Here, we report that AURKB was highly expressed and positively correlated with Ki-67 expression in CRC. The abundant expression of AURKB promotes the growth of CRC cells and xenograft tumors in animal model. AURKB knockdown substantially suppressed CRC proliferation and triggered cell cycle arrest in G2/M phase. Interestingly, cyclin E1 (CCNE1) was discovered as a direct downstream target of AURKB and functioned synergistically with AURKB to promote CRC cell proliferation. Mechanically, AURKB activated CCNE1 expression by triggering pH3S10 in the promoter region of CCNE1. Furthermore, it was showed that the inhibitor specific for AURKB (AZD1152) can suppress CCNE1 expression in CRC cells and inhibit tumor cell growth. To conclude, this research demonstrates that AURKB accelerated the tumorigenesis of CRC through its potential to epigenetically activate CCNE1 expression, suggesting AURKB as a promising therapeutic target in CRC.

show abstract

Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review

Rosengaard,

Andersen,

Rosenberg

et al. 2024

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research waste is present in all study designs and can have significant consequences for science, including reducing the reliability of research findings and contributing to the inefficient use of resources. Estimates suggest that as much as 85% of all biomedical research is wasted. However, it is uncertain how avoidable research waste is assessed in specific types of study designs and what methods could be used to examine different aspects of research waste. We aimed to investigate which methods, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews discussing research waste, have used to assess avoidable research waste. Materials and Methods We published a protocol in the Open Science Framework prospectively (https://osf.io/2fbp4). We searched PubMed and Embase with a 30-year limit (January 1993–August 2023). The concept examined was how research waste and related synonyms (e.g., unnecessary, redundant, duplicate, etc.) were assessed in reviews with a systematic search: systematic, scoping, or overviews of reviews. We extracted data on the method used in the review to examine for research waste and for which study design this method was applied. Results The search identified 4,285 records of which 93 reviews with systematic searches were included. The reviews examined a median of 90 (range 10–6,781) studies, where the study designs most commonly included were randomized controlled trials (48%) and systematic reviews (33%). In the last ten years, the number of reports assessing research waste has increased. More than 50% of examined reviews reported evaluating methodological research waste among included studies, typically using tools such as one of Cochrane Risk of Bias tools (n = 8) for randomized controlled trials or AMSTAR 1 or 2 (n = 12) for systematic reviews. One fourth of reviews assessed reporting guideline adherence to e.g., CONSORT (n = 4) for randomized controlled trials or PRISMA (n = 6) for systematic reviews. Conclusion Reviews with systematic searches focus on methodological quality and reporting guideline adherence when examining research waste. However, this scoping review revealed that a wide range of tools are used, which may pose difficulties in comparing examinations and performing meta-research. This review aids researchers in selecting methodologies and contributes to the ongoing discourse on optimizing research efficiency.

show abstract

Lessons from a systematic literature search on diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer: how to increase research value and decrease research waste

Cited by 3 publications

References 57 publications

Colorectal cancer detected by liquid biopsy 2 years prior to clinical diagnosis in the HUNT study

Colorectal cancer detected by liquid biopsy 2 years prior to clinical diagnosis in the HUNT study

AURKB promotes colorectal cancer progression by triggering the phosphorylation of histone H3 at serine 10 to activate CCNE1 expression

Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About