4.6 Article

Assessment of circulating copy number variant detection for cancer screening

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180647

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Scripps Translational Science Institute pilot award from Scripps Genomic Medicine [5 UL1 TR001114]
  2. NIH-NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) [5 UL1 RR025774]
  3. NHGRI Genome Sequencing Informatics Tools (GS-IT) Program [NIH U01 HG006476]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current high-sensitivity cancer screening methods, largely utilizing correlative biomarkers, suffer from false positive rates that lead to unnecessary medical procedures and debatable public health benefit overall. Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), a causal biomarker, has the potential to revolutionize cancer screening. Thus far, the majority of ctDNA studies have focused on detection of tumor-specific point mutations after cancer diagnosis for the purpose of post-treatment surveillance. However, ctDNA point mutation detection methods developed to date likely lack either the scope or analytical sensitivity necessary to be useful for cancer screening, due to the low (< 1%) ctDNA fraction derived from early stage tumors. On the other hand, tumor-derived copy number variant (CNV) detection is hypothetically a superior means of ctDNA-based cancer screening for many tumor types, given that, relative to point mutations, each individual tumor CNV contributes a much larger number of ctDNA fragments to the overall pool of circulating free DNA (cfDNA). A small number of studies have demonstrated the potential of ctDNA CNV-based screening in select cancer types. Here we perform an in silico assessment of the potential for ctDNA CNVbased cancer screening across many common cancers, and suggest ctDNA CNV detection shows promise as a broad cancer screening methodology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available