PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 8, 2025Blood0 citationsOpen Access

Non-invasive detection and classification of lymphoma via cell-free DNA methylation profiling

View Full Paper
TLTing LiuDZDavidson ZhaoASAlthaf Singhawansa

Key Points

  • To evaluate the effectiveness of cell-free DNA methylation profiling for non-invasive lymphoma diagnosis and subtype classification.
  • Analyzed 265 plasma samples including pre-treatment lymphoma patients and non-lymphoma controls.
  • Used cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing to assess methylation patterns.
  • Developed and validated classification models for lymphoma and its subtypes based on methylation data.
  • The binary classification model achieved an accuracy of 0.88 for lymphoma vs. controls.
  • Subtype-specific models showed accuracy rates of up to 0.96 for certain lymphoma types.
  • Methylation scores correlated significantly with clinical indicators such as LDH levels and treatment response.

Abstract

Abstract Diagnosing lymphoma relies on invasive tissue biopsies, which can yield insufficient material for histopathological evaluation and carry a risk of complications. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis from plasma represents a promising alternative for non-invasive lymphoma diagnosis, as DNA methylation patterns are both highly cell type–specific and characteristically altered in malignancy. We analyzed cfDNA methylation in 265 plasma samples (165 pre-treatment samples from lymphoma patients: 71 DLBCL, 46 FL, 48 HL; 48 non-lymphoma/non-malignant controls; and 52 post-cycle 1 or end-of-treatment EOT samples from 15 DLBCL and 12 FL patients) using cell-free methylated DNA immunoprecipitation and sequencing (cfMeDIP-seq). Most pre-treatment samples (84.2%) were obtained at diagnosis, and a small number of samples before second-line treatment (15.8%). The pre-treatment cohort was split into discovery (n=142) and validation (n=71) sets for model development and testing. Differential methylation analysis identified 13,934 lymphoma-associated hypermethylated regions, which were used to train regularized binomial generalized linear models. Enrichment analyses revealed these regions overlapped significantly with CpG islands and H3K27me3-marked genes. In the validation cohort, the binary classification model distinguishing lymphoma from controls achieved an accuracy of 0.88, with a positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.88. Subtype-specific models were subsequently developed: the DLBCL vs. control model reached an AUC of 0.96 and accuracy of 0.87 (PPV = 0.91, NPV = 0.84); the FL vs. control model yielded an AUC of 0.82 and accuracy of 0.74 (PPV = 0.82, NPV = 0.69); and the HL vs. control model achieved an AUC of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.96 (PPV = 0.94, NPV = 0.98). Stage-stratified analysis showed high classification performance for both limited and advanced-stage disease. The lymphoma vs. control model achieved AUCs of 0.96 (advanced-stage) and 0.94 (limited-stage). For DLBCL, AUCs were 0.98 and 0.94; for FL, 0.88 and 0.70; and for HL, 0.99 and 0.97, respectively. A three-class model distinguishing controls, HL, and a combined DLBCL/FL group showed robust overall performance. HL classification achieved an AUC of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.89 (PPV = 0.91, NPV = 0.89); the DLBCL/FL group reached an AUC of 0.95 and accuracy of 0.86 (PPV = 0.92, NPV = 0.82); and control classification had an AUC of 0.95 and accuracy of 0.80 (PPV = 0.69, NPV = 0.87). A four-class model distinguishing HL, DLBCL, FL, and controls showed that HL remained the most accurately identified subtype (AUC = 0.99, accuracy = 0.89, PPV = 0.92, NPV = 0.89), followed by DLBCL (AUC = 0.89, accuracy = 0.83) and FL (AUC = 0.80, accuracy = 0.79). DLBCL samples misclassified as FL were enriched for GCB-type mutations in EZH2 and BCL2 and lacked ABC-associated mutations such as TBL1XR1, BTG1, CCND3, and PRDM1. We calculated cfDNA methylation scores by averaging normalized methylation levels across lymphoma-associated hypermethylated regions. These scores were significantly associated with LDH levels (DLBCL: R = 0.53, p = 2.1×10⁻⁶; FL: R = 0.51, p = 2.9×10⁻⁴), IPI in DLBCL (p = 0.0077), FLIPI in FL (p = 9.1×10⁻⁸), cfDNA tumor burden, and metabolic tumor volume from PET-CT. Methylation scores from plasma samples taken after the first immunochemotherapy cycle (15 DLBCL, 10 FL) and at EOT (15 DLBCL, 12 FL) tracked treatment response as conveyed by PET-CT or CT scans. Increasing scores were observed alongside radiographic progression in 2 patients, and a patient with complete radiological response but with a slow declining methylation score post-cycle 1 had early progression 2 months after EOT. Five additional patients with low EOT methylation scores and complete metabolic response experienced either relapse or transformation. Four progression-free patients showed partial radiological response, but had low methylation scores at EOT. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to apply cfMeDIP-seq to plasma samples from lymphoma patients. cfDNA methylation profiling offers a sensitive, minimally invasive approach for lymphoma detection and subtype classification, with high classification performance even in early-stage disease for DLBCL and HL. cfDNA methylation correlates with tumor burden and clinical risk, supporting its potential role as a biomarker for predicting treatment response.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69362f7d4fa91c937236e457https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-1748
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper