Explores DNA methylation testing to improve non-invasive detection of recurrent endometrial cancer, indicating its potential for enhancing post-treatment surveillance.
DNA methylation analysis of self-collected samples has shown potential for primary endometrial cancer detection. Here, we aimed to explore DNA methylation testing as a non-invasive alternative for post-treatment surveillance. Endometrial cancer patients (n = 43) without recurrence collected pre- and post-treatment cervicovaginal self-samples and urine at home. Additionally, 17 patients with recurrence provided these samples at the time of recurrence. Healthy controls were used as reference. In total, 207 cervicovaginal self-samples and 203 urine samples were tested for nine markers (ADCYAP1, BHLHE22, CDH13, CDO1, GALR1, GHSR, HAND2, SST and ZIC1) using quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Diagnostic performance was assessed using previously established logistic regression models. In patients without recurrence, most marker levels decreased post-treatment compared to pre-treatment, in both sample types. DNA methylation positivity in cervicovaginal self-samples reduced from 90.7% pre-treatment to 19.5% post-treatment (p < .0001). In urine, a decrease from 80.5% to 20.9% was observed (p < .0001). In patients with recurrence, DNA methylation levels of CDH13, CDO1, GALR1, GHSR and HAND2 in cervicovaginal self-samples, and CDO1, GHSR and HAND2 in urine, were higher than in patients without recurrence. DNA methylation positivity was 62.5% in cervicovaginal self-samples and 58.8% in urine among patients with any recurrence, and 100% in cervicovaginal self-samples and 90.0% in urine of patients with a local recurrence specifically. These findings support methylation-based testing as a promising post-treatment surveillance method for endometrial cancer patients. This non-invasive approach could reduce the follow-up burden on patients and healthcare, alleviating challenges related to resource constraints while improving patient comfort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nouwens et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: