DNA methylation biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

The present invention provides a robust method for detecting cancer in DNA extracted from an exploratory tissue biopsy or plasma sample obtained from a patient, the method comprising measuring DNA methylation levels in multiple defined differentially methylated regions of a genome comprising multiple CpG sites.

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an advantageous method for detecting low levels of cancer-derived DNA in patient samples by determining DNA methylation signatures at multiple loci.

[0002] The present invention claims the benefit of priority to European Patent Application (EP) No. 21175425, filed May 21, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety herein. [Background technology]

[0003] Current hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnostic guidelines require the use of invasive methods such as tissue biopsy followed by histological and / or contrast imaging. Due to these time-consuming methods, HCC is often detected at an advanced stage, with 40% of cases being multinodular or metastatic, and 72% of cases being left without treatment options (Llovet et al., 2021 Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 7:6). Screening and surveillance programs are therefore essential to detect and diagnose HCC early, providing patients with more time for treatment options that could extend their life expectancy.

[0004] Liquid biopsies (LBs) taken from body fluids such as plasma and urine contain circulating molecular biomarkers of HCC and may represent a non-invasive and inexpensive alternative for early diagnostic assays. High levels of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in such samples can identify HCC with almost perfect specificity, but sensitivity (recall) is often low, less than 45%, whereas a low AFP threshold (20ng / ml) provides a good balance between specificity and sensitivity, both in the range of around 79%. Of note, in patients with chronic liver disease, especially HCV-associated cirrhosis, the suitability of AFP as a biomarker is significantly reduced and insufficient for a definite diagnosis (Bialecki et al., 2005 HPB 7:26). LBs also contain cell-free DNA (cfDNA) material derived from cells throughout the body, including circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Measurement of genetic markers in ctDNA, such as mutations and methylation, can be used as diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

[0005] Although several studies have identified DNA methylation biomarkers for HCC (Liu et al., 2020 Ann. Oncol. 31, 745; Bonder et al., 2014 BMC Genomics 15, 860; Wang et al., 2019 Hepatology 70, 51; Chang et al., 2018 Genome Med. 10, 42; Shui et al., 2020 Front. Genet. 11, 906), they were limited to tissue samples only, focused on identifying a small set of single CpG sites, and / or compared with healthy liver tissue samples, thus failing to distinguish HCC from chronic liver diseases such as cirrhosis, and were vulnerable to probe failure or the presence of mutations in patient samples that precluded diagnostic results. [Prior art documents] [Non-patent literature]

[0006] [Non-Patent Document 1] Llovet et al., 2021 Nat.Rev.Dis.Primers 7:6 [Non-Patent Document 2] Bialecki et al., 2005 HPB 7:26 [Non-Patent Document 3] Liu et al., 2020 Ann.Oncol.31,745 [Non-Patent Document 4] Bonder et al., 2014 BMC Genomics 15,860 [Non-Patent Document 5] Wang et al., 2019 Hepatology 70, 51 [Non-Patent Document 6] Chang et al., 2018 Genome Med. 10, 42 [Non-Patent Document 7] Shui et al., 2020 Front.Genet.11,906 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0007] Based on the above state of the art, it is an object of the present invention to provide means and methods for accurately detecting low concentrations of tumor-derived DNA in patient samples, in particular for detecting the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma-derived DNA in acellular samples such as plasma. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] This object is achieved by the subject matter of the independent claims herein and by further advantageous embodiments described in the dependent claims herein, the examples, the figures and the general description. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0009] [Figure 1]Figure 1 shows an overview of the collected DNA methylation datasets: a) number of samples across different types, i.e. HCC tumors, healthy liver, and samples from cirrhosis and other liver diseases; b) number of samples per study constituting the training and testing datasets; c) similar to b) number of samples per study constituting the validation dataset. [Diagram 2] Figure 2 shows the optimization of the number of top DNA methylation HCC biomarkers. Greedy sequential DMR selection selects the optimal DMRs for sequential addition to the LinearSVC model. For each number of DMRs, 30 balanced training sets were created and benchmarked. The model was trained on the balanced training set and used for prediction of the training, testing, and validation datasets. The number of features to be selected ranged from 1 to 38, with 38 indicating the median number of features for the LinearSVC model. Errors represent 95 confidence intervals. [Figure 3-1] Figure 3 shows a DMR benchmark analysis of HCC biomarkers. a) Comparison of leave-one-out recall and precision obtained with multiple HCC biomarker sets on tissue samples and b) cfDNA samples. c) Precision and recall of multiple HCC biomarker feature sets trained with training and test samples and predicted on an independent validation set. [Figure 3-2] Figure 3 shows a DMR benchmark analysis of HCC biomarkers. a) Comparison of leave-one-out recall and precision obtained with multiple HCC biomarker sets on tissue samples and b) cfDNA samples. c) Precision and recall of multiple HCC biomarker feature sets trained with training and test samples and predicted on an independent validation set. [Figure 3-3] d) Heatmap showing the mean β-methylation values ​​of HCC and non-HCC (healthy, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease) samples in the training and test sample subsets. [Diagram 3-4] d) Heatmap showing the mean β-methylation values ​​of HCC and non-HCC (healthy, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease) samples in the training and test sample subsets. [Figure 4-1] Figure 4 shows the ranking of features for DNA methylation risk score for HCC. a) DMR coefficients in 1,000 permutations of the balanced dataset: [Figure 4-2] b) Left: Precision and recall of the top 1-38 DMRs were tested by training on the training and testing datasets and testing with the validation dataset. Right: Ridge classifier DMR coefficients obtained from the top 38 and top 20 DMR signatures. The solid black lines represent the linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. The dashed lines represent the diagonal. [Figure 4-3] c) Precision-recall curves for validation samples calculated using the linear risk scores estimated from the average coefficients obtained from 1,000 permutation analyses. [Figure 5-1] FIG. 5 shows the ranking of precision-recall curves for DMR signature risk scores a) for only samples in the training and testing datasets that were not used to identify and estimate HCC biomarkers and weights. The maximum F1 score along the curve is represented by an "x" and the DMR signature risk score threshold at a given recall and precision. Random precision is shown by a dashed horizontal line. b) Training and testing samples for DMR signature risk scores that were not used to discover HCC biomarkers are plotted against a representative top-performing DMR. The vertical line indicates the DMR signature risk score threshold found with the maximum F1 score in a) and the associated recall and precision are reported. [Figure 5-2] c) Precision-recall curves for all cfDNA samples in the training and testing datasets, including samples from patients with other types of cancer (labeled "cancer"). d) As in b), the DMR signature risk score threshold (vertical dashed line) is estimated from the maximum F1 score point along the precision-recall curve in c), and recall and precision are reported. [Figure 5-3]e) The DMR signature risk scores estimated for the validation set samples are plotted against the two highly predictive HCC DMRs and their methylation profiles. The DMR signature risk score thresholds were defined using the training and testing datasets. Precision and recall were estimated on the validation dataset. [Figure 6-1] Figure 6 shows the DMR signature risk score of the benchmark and performance characteristic measures. a) DMR signature risk score calculated for all samples in the training and testing datasets that were not used to identify the biomarker DMR values ​​and their weights for the DMR signature risk score. The DMR signature risk score is plotted against the three top predictive HCC DNA methylation biomarkers. The HCC classification threshold is represented by the vertical dashed line, and precision and recall are reported. [Figure 6-2] b) As in a), only cfDNA samples are utilized, and cfDNA samples from patients with other cancers (marked in blue and labeled "cancer") are also considered as positive events. cfDNA samples from healthy controls are marked in green ("healthy"), and recall and precision are reported. [Figure 7-1] Figure 7 shows how a) recall and b) precision of the DMR signature risk score model change by randomly undersampling only 1, 2, or 3 CpG sites in each DMR and estimating their average methylation degree using only these CpG sites for the top 8, 10, 20, and 38 DMRs. [Figure 7-2] Figure 7 shows how a) recall and b) precision of the DMR signature risk score model change by randomly undersampling only 1, 2, or 3 CpG sites in each DMR and estimating their average methylation degree using only these CpG sites for the top 8, 10, 20, and 38 DMRs. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0010] Summary of the Invention The present invention relates to a method for detecting cancer cell-specific DNA methylation signals in patient samples, even when cancer cell DNA is present at very low concentrations (e.g. cell-free tumor DNA present in plasma samples obtained from patients suspected of having cancer in a particular organ, in particular patients suspected of having hepatocellular carcinoma).

[0011] The method includes measuring methylation levels at multiple differentially methylated regions (DMRs) of a genome to obtain a value for each DMR that reflects the methylation status of one or more redundant CpG sites that share a distinct cancer-specific methylation signature. The method further includes assessing the statistical significance of the multiple DMR methylation values ​​to assign a patient an increased or decreased probability of having cancer.

[0012] The methods according to the invention advantageously incorporate predictive information from multiple redundant methylation measurements, so that in the event that one or more individual components of the method fail, e.g. failure to obtain a single CpG measurement due to the presence of a single nucleotide polymorphism in the patient's DNA, or technical failure of one or more assay probes, the patient can still be accurately assigned a probability of having cancer based on the other successfully determined measurements.

[0013] These DMRs are defined such that DNA methylation of a single CpG site within a DMR provides a cancer predictive value equivalent to the average of two or more or all CpG sites within the DMR. A second layer of redundancy is introduced that increases the sensitivity of the diagnostic method by flexibly combining the predictive values ​​of 2-38, particularly 8-38, more particularly 10-20 DMRs defined in Table 1 with a predictive risk score to form a method that accurately assigns a probability of having cancer to a patient based on the DNA methylation signature of an ex vivo sample.

[0014] Certain embodiments of the invention relate to inputting the DMR methylation levels into a cancer prediction classification algorithm to obtain a risk score, which is then assigned a probability of having cancer to the patient, and optionally comparing this risk score to a threshold value.

[0015] A particular embodiment of the present invention relates to the use of the above-described method according to the invention for analyzing a plasma sample or a liver biopsy sample to determine whether a patient has hepatocellular carcinoma.

[0016] Terms and Definitions For the purposes of interpreting this specification, the following definitions shall apply and, where appropriate, terms used in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. In the event that a definition set forth below conflicts with any document incorporated herein by reference, the definition set forth herein shall control.

[0017] As used herein, the terms "comprising," "having," "containing," "including," and other similar forms and their grammatical equivalents are intended to be equivalent in meaning and to be open-ended in that the item or items following any one of these words are not intended to be an exhaustive list of such item or items or to be limited to only the item or items listed. For example, an item "comprising" components A, B, and C can consist of components A, B, and C (i.e., contain only components A, B, and C), or can include not only components A, B, and C, but also one or more other components. Thus, "comprising" and similar forms and their grammatical equivalents are intended and understood to include disclosure of embodiments that "consist essentially of" or "consist of."

[0018] Where a range of values ​​is provided, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, it is understood that each intervening value, to the tenth of the unit of the lower limit, between the upper and lower limit of that range, and any other stated or intervening value within that stated range, is encompassed within the disclosure, subject to any specifically excluded limit in the stated range. Where one or both of the limits are included in the stated range, ranges excluding either or both of those included limits are also included in the disclosure.

[0019] As used herein, reference to a value or parameter "about" includes (and describes) the variance directed to the value or parameter itself. For example, a statement referring to "about X" also includes the statement "X."

[0020] As used in this specification, including the appended claims, the singular forms "a," "or," and "the" include plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.

[0021] Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by those skilled in the art (e.g., cell culture, molecular genetics, nucleic acid chemistry, hybridization techniques, and biochemistry). Standard techniques are used for molecular biology, genetic, and biochemical methods (see generally Sambrook et al. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 4th ed. (2012) Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, and Ausubel et al., Short Protocols in Molecular Biology (2002) 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) and chemical methods.

[0022] array Sequences similar or homologous (e.g., at least about 70% sequence identity) to the sequences disclosed herein are also part of the present invention. In some embodiments, sequence identity at the amino acid level can be about 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or more than 99%. At the nucleic acid level, sequence identity can be about 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, or more than 99%. Alternatively, substantial identity exists when a nucleic acid segment hybridizes under selective hybridization conditions (e.g., under very high stringency hybridization conditions) to the complement of its strand. The nucleic acids may be present in whole cells, in a cell lysate, or in a partially purified or substantially pure form.

[0023] As used herein, the terms "sequence identity" and "percentage of sequence identity" refer to a quantitative parameter that represents the result of sequence comparison, which is determined by comparing two aligned sequences position by position. Methods for aligning sequences for comparison are well known in the art. Sequence alignment for comparison can be performed by the local homology algorithm of Smith and Waterman, Adv. Appl. Math. 2:482 (1981), the global alignment algorithm of Needleman and Wunsch, J. Mol. Biol. 48:443 (1970), the similarity search method of Pearson and Lipman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 85:2444 (1988), or computerized implementations of these algorithms, including but not limited to CLUSTAL, GAP, BESTFIT, BLAST, FASTA, and TFASTA. Software for performing BLAST analyses is publicly available through, for example, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (http: / / blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov / ).

[0024] One such example of a nucleic acid sequence comparison is the BLASTN algorithm, using the following default settings: Expect threshold: 10; Word size: 28; Max matches in a query range: 0; Match / Mismatch Scores: 1.-2; Gap costs: Linear. Unless otherwise specified, sequence identity values ​​provided herein refer to values ​​obtained using the BLAST suite of programs using the above-specified default parameters for protein and nucleic acid comparisons, respectively (Altschul et al., J. Mol. Biol. 215:403-410 (1990)). Reference to identical sequences without specifying a percentage includes the meaning of 100% identical sequences (i.e., the same sequence).

[0025] The term "nucleotide" in the context of this specification refers to a nucleic acid or nucleic acid analog building block, which oligomers can form selective hybrids with RNA or DNA oligomers based on base pairing. The term "nucleotide" in this context includes the classical ribonucleotide building blocks adenosine, guanosine, uridine (and ribosylthymine), cytidine, and the classical deoxyribonucleotides deoxyadenosine, deoxyguanosine, thymidine, deoxyuridine, and deoxycytidine. In addition, it includes analogs of nucleic acids such as phosphothioates, 2'O-methylphosphothioates, peptide nucleic acids (PNA; N-(2-aminoethyl)-glycine units linked by peptide bonds with the nucleic acid base attached to the alpha carbon of glycine) or locked nucleic acids (LNA; 2'O,4'C methylene bridged RNA building blocks). When referring to a "hybridizing sequence" in this specification, such a hybridizing sequence may be composed of any of the above nucleotides or a mixture thereof.

[0026] The term "probe" in the present context relates to a molecular probe, and in particular to a "nucleic acid probe" that can selectively hybridize to a specific region that contains a single target CpG dinucleotide. Such hybridizing nucleic acid sequences may be consecutively reverse-complementary to the target sequence, or may contain gaps, mismatches, or additional unmatched nucleotides. The minimum length of a sequence capable of forming a hybrid depends on its composition (C or G nucleotides contribute more to the binding energy than A or T / U nucleotides) and on the backbone chemistry.

[0027] In the present context, the term "hybridizing sequence" encompasses polynucleotide sequences comprising or consisting essentially of RNA (ribonucleotides), DNA (deoxyribonucleotides), phosphothioate deoxyribonucleotides, 2'-O-methyl modified phosphothioate ribonucleotides, LNA and / or PNA nucleotide analogs. In certain embodiments, hybridizing sequences according to the invention comprise 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 or 30 nucleotides. In certain embodiments, hybridizing sequences are at least 80% identical, more preferably 85%, 90%, 92%, 94%, 95%, 96%, 97%, 98% or 99% identical to the reverse complement sequences around the CpG sites listed in Table 1. In certain embodiments, the hybridizing sequences comprise deoxynucleotides, phosphothioate deoxynucleotides, LNA and / or PNA nucleotides, or mixtures thereof.

[0028] The terms "CpG site", "CpG locus" or "CpG residue", sometimes abbreviated as "cg" in CpG site nomenclature, in the context of this specification, relate to CpG DNA dinucleotides, which may be either methylated or unmethylated as described above. A CpG dinucleotide is a genomic position where a cytosine nucleotide is linked to a guanine nucleotide by a phosphodiester bond (5' to 3' direction). In humans, DNA methylation occurs at the 5' position of the pyrimidine ring of a cytosine residue. The CpG sites shown in Table 1 refer to CpG sites where methylation differences can be accurately detected in both liquid acellular samples such as plasma or liver tissue samples of patients suffering from cancer, particularly hepatocellular carcinoma, compared to samples of healthy controls or samples from patients with non-cancer diseases.

[0029] The terms "DNA methylation level", "DNA methylation" or "methylation level" in the context of this specification refer to the presence or absence of a methylated CpG dinucleotide motif either at a particular locus or at one or more CpG sites within a differentially methylated region (see below). For the data presented in the Examples, DNA methylation at a CpG site is expressed using a value of β-methylation, which is a normalized measurement obtained from the fluorescent signal intensity generated by a probe that binds to either the bisulfite-modified unmethylated allele or the methylated allele at a particular target CpG site in the genome in a methylation microarray. As used herein, "β-methylation" normalizes the raw measurements related to the presence of methylated and unmethylated motifs within a limited range from 0, indicating hypomethylation of a particular target CpG dinucleotide site, to 1, indicating hypermethylation of that site. It is expressed relative to the total amount of DNA containing the target CpG present in the sample, offset by a fixed value specific to the measurement mode and recommended by the manufacturer.

[0030] The term "differentially methylated region" or "DMR" refers to a genomic region with a differential (different) methylation status in two groups, and is sometimes referred to herein as a "CpG cluster." Herein, 38 DMRs of particular interest to the present invention from cancer and non-cancer samples with different methylation signatures are shown in Table 1 along with their locations in the human reference genome 38. DMRs 1-38 contain at least three CpG sites, and no two consecutive CpG sites are more than 500 base pairs apart. Methylation of a DMR refers to the methylation level measured at one of the CpG sites, or refers to the average or median methylation levels of two or more of the CpG sites.

[0031] "Cancer" in the present context refers to a malignant neoplastic disease in which tumor cells proliferate uncontrollably, and includes both primary tumors and metastatic disease. Importantly, tumor cells are often characterized by aberrant DNA methylation compared to healthy controls or other inflammatory diseases. Cancer-specific differential DNA methylation can be detected by sufficiently sensitive diagnostic assays not only in tumor biopsy samples containing large amounts of tumor DNA, but also in samples containing very low concentrations of cell-free DNA, such as urine, plasma, serum, or blood. The term "cancer" according to the present invention includes solid tumors, such as lung, liver, or colon cancer, as well as cancers of blood cell origin, such as lymphoma or leukemia. The term cancer according to the present invention includes both primary cancers as well as recurrent cancer disease.

[0032] The term "patient" in the context of this specification includes a subject suspected of having cancer or a patient previously diagnosed with cancer and being monitored for disease recurrence.

[0033] The term "liver cancer" according to the present invention refers to cancer originating from liver cells, such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma originating from liver cells. HCC patients also include those suffering from comorbid diseases affecting the liver, such as hepatitis C infection or liver cirrhosis.

[0034] The term "chronic liver disease" in the context of the present invention refers to non-cancerous diseases characterized by inflammation of the liver, including but not limited to viral infections such as hepatitis A or C, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency patients, inflammation associated with obesity, and cirrhosis. The control samples used for comparison with cancer samples to identify predictive DMRs according to the embodiments use such chronic liver disease samples to identify methylation signatures that distinguish samples containing cancer cells from samples characterized by non-cancerous inflammation that affects liver function. Samples obtained from patients diagnosed with "chronic liver disease" according to the present invention are used to train the predictive algorithm according to the present invention.

[0035] The term "cirrhosis" refers to a chronic liver disease characterized by hepatocyte death, inflammation, and fibrosis. "Cirrhosis" is often a precursor to HCC. Cirrhosis can be caused by genetic mutations, viral infections, exposure to toxins, or alcohol consumption.

[0036] Detailed Description of the Invention A first aspect of the present invention is a method for determining whether a patient has cancer, comprising the steps of: Determining the level of DNA methylation levels for a plurality of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in an ex-vivo sample obtained from a patient, the plurality of DMRs according to the present invention comprising or consisting essentially of any two or more of the DMRs defined in Table 1, each DMR comprising three or more CpG sites characterized by differences in methylation between cancer and non-cancer samples.

[0037] In some embodiments, the DNA methylation level of any DMR as defined above by the present invention may be the DNA methylation level determined for one of the CpG sites listed within that DMR according to Table 1. For example, the methylation level of DMR1 may be the methylation level measured at one of cg144855744, cg20547777, or cg16009311.

[0038] Other embodiments relate to using the average of the methylation levels of two or more CpG sites contained within any DMR to provide the methylation level of the DMR. For example, the methylation level of DMR1 can be calculated by: - cg144855744 and cg20547777, - cg144855744 and cg16009311, - cg20547777 and cg16009311, or - cg144855744, cg20547777, and cg16009311 The DNA methylation level may be the average of the respective DNA methylation levels determined in

[0039] The number of CpG sites at which DNA methylation levels are measured within each DMR is not particularly limited in the present invention, as each provides equivalent cancer prediction information, as shown in Figure 7 in the Examples.

[0040] The next step of the method is an evaluation step, in which the combined statistical significance of the multiple DMR methylation levels determined in the measuring step is evaluated. Evaluating the statistical significance of the multiple DMR methylation levels may include, for example, comparing the methylation values ​​to a control sample previously determined to contain or not contain DNA from cancer cells, or a threshold value representative of the methylation level of said control sample, assessing whether each DMR is characterized by hypomethylation or hypermethylation compared to said control or threshold value, or combining the multiple DNA methylation values ​​obtained for each DMR into an algorithm that provides a single numerical value reflecting the overall DMR methylation signature of the sample.

[0041] Next, in the assignment step, the patient is assigned either a high probability of having cancer or a low probability of having cancer based on the statistical significance of the combined DMR methylation levels obtained in the evaluation step.

[0042] In an optional further step, patients assigned a high probability of having cancer can be treated with an appropriate anti-neoplastic therapy or a particular cancer-specific treatment regimen, such as one or more chemotherapeutic agents or checkpoint inhibitors as described herein, etc. Alternatively, patients assigned a low probability of having cancer will not require treatment or will require additional testing for cancer within 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or more months from the initial low probability assignment.

[0043] The number of DMRs for which methylation levels are obtained may vary depending on the various embodiments of the invention and on the manner in which the methylation levels are obtained or the desired accuracy or sensitivity of the diagnostic assay.

[0044] Some embodiments further relate to methods of determining DMR methylation levels between 2 and 38 of the DMRs identified in Table 1, such that even incorporating DNA methylation levels of two DMRs into the risk score has been demonstrated to achieve a sensitivity of over 80%, classifying patient samples as having or not having cancer with a precision rate of over 90% (Table 7).

[0045] Another embodiment relates to a method in which the DMR methylation levels are determined for 8 to 38 of the DMRs defined in Table 1, such that the DNA methylation levels of the 8 DMRs are used in a risk score to classify a patient sample according to the presence of HCC in the patient with a sensitivity rate of over 90%.

[0046] Certain embodiments relate to methods of determining DMR methylation levels for approximately 20 DMRs listed in Table 1, which are demonstrated in Table 2 of the Examples to achieve greater than 95% sensitivity when used in a predictive additive linear algorithm to obtain a risk score that classifies patients according to the presence or absence of HCC-derived DNA in the patient sample.

[0047] The methods according to the invention can be used to detect the presence of cancer cells in a patient sample. Some embodiments relate to the use of the diagnostic methods according to the invention to identify DNA methylation signatures indicative of lung cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, or liver cancer.

[0048] A particular embodiment of the present invention relates to the use of the method defined above for detecting a DNA methylation signature in DNA extracted from a patient sample in order to determine whether a patient has or does not have hepatocellular carcinoma.

[0049] Because the method according to the invention is both sensitive and robust, it is expected that the method will be broadly applicable to many different types of ex vivo patient samples.

[0050] Certain embodiments relate to the use of DNA extracted from exploratory biopsies of tissue suspected of containing cancer.

[0051] Other embodiments relate to the use of DNA extracted from liquid tissue samples such as blood, or even acellular samples such as plasma or serum.

[0052] Certain embodiments relate to the use of DNA extracted from plasma obtained from patients suspected of having a cancer originating from a solid organ, such as HCC.

[0053] Some embodiments of the invention relate to assigning a patient an increased probability of having cancer if the methylation level determined for DMR2, DMR4, DMR5, DMR9, DMR10, DMR14, DMR15, DMR16, DMR18, DMR23, DMR24, DMR28, DMR29, DMR35, and / or DMR37 indicates that the region is hypermethylated, and / or if the methylation level determined for DMR1, DMR3, DMR6, DMR7, DMR8, DMR11, DMR12, DMR13, DMR17, DMR19, DMR20, DMR21, DMR22, DMR25, DMR26, DMR27, DMR30, DMR31, DMR32, DMR33, DMR34, DMR36, and / or DMR38 indicates that the region is hypomethylated.

[0054] Hypermethylation or hypomethylation according to this embodiment of the invention may be ascertained in the evaluation step with respect to the mean or median methylation level of said DMR as determined in a plurality of control samples previously determined to not contain cancer cells, particularly within two standard deviations, more particularly within one standard deviation from said mean.

[0055] In another embodiment of the evaluating step, the plurality of DNA methylation levels are subjected to a predictive classification algorithm, which classifies the sample according to the probability that the sample contains DNA from cancer cells to obtain a risk score.

[0056] Certain embodiments relate to the use of additive linear scores as a classification algorithm according to the present invention.

[0057] Particular embodiments include - multiplying each of the plurality of DMR methylation levels by a weighting value calculated according to the relative predictive power observed for any one DMR to obtain a weighted plurality of DMR methylation values; and - calculating the sum of the weighted DMR methylation values ​​to obtain a risk score; and subjecting the multiple DNA methylation levels obtained in the measurement step to an additive linear score according to the method of the present invention.

[0058] The relative predictive power of any one DMR is a function of the amount and variability of DNA methylation observed among the test and validation cohorts of HCC and non-HCC patient samples used in the Examples. The top 38, 20, 10, 8, 5, 3, and 2 predictive DMRs for HCC are shown in Tables 1-7 in the Examples.

[0059] Some embodiments of the measuring step relate to determining the methylation levels in multiple DMRs, including the top predictive region DMR1.

[0060] Another embodiment of the measuring step relates to the determination of the methylation levels in a number of DMRs including or consisting of the top two predictive regions DMR1 and DMR4.

[0061] Another embodiment of the measuring step relates to determining the methylation levels in a number of DMRs including or consisting of the top three predictive regions DMR1, DMR4, and DMR28.

[0062] Another embodiment of the measuring step relates to determining the methylation levels in a number of DMRs including or consisting of the top five predictive regions DMR1, DMR4, DMR28, DMR35, and DMR36.

[0063] A particular embodiment of the measuring step relates to determining the methylation levels in a plurality of DMRs including or consisting of the top eight predictive regions DMR1, DMR4, DMR6, DMR7, DMR31, DMR35, DMR28 and DMR23.

[0064] A particular embodiment of the measuring step relates to determining the methylation levels in a plurality of DMRs including or consisting of the top 10 predictive regions DMR1, DMR4, DMR27, DMR6, DMR2, DMR16, DMR31, DMR35, DMR28, and DMR23.

[0065] A multi-cohort meta-analysis presented in the Examples demonstrates a predictive risk score that incorporates information derived from the magnitude and variability of high or low DNA methylation of 2-38 DMRs in two sample groups that did or did not contain cancer-derived cells. When compared to a threshold depending on the number of DMR values ​​incorporated, the predictive risk score can robustly identify whether a DNA methylation signature derived from cancer cells, particularly HCC cells, is present in a patient sample, whether the patient sample is a liver tissue sample or a serum sample.

[0066] Some embodiments of the assignment step as defined above relate to a process of comparing the risk score as defined above with a threshold value that accurately discriminates between cancer and non-cancer samples. In some embodiments, a risk score obtained by inputting a plurality of DMR methylation values ​​into a prediction algorithm as defined above, equal to or greater than the threshold value, indicates a high probability that the patient has cancer. Conversely, a risk score below the threshold value indicates a low probability that the patient has cancer.

[0067] A particular embodiment of the present invention relates to the use of a predictive algorithm in the evaluation step obtained by training a classification model. The classification model uses an input of training values ​​to develop an algorithm capable of classifying new values. Suitable classification models according to the present invention include, but are not limited to, a logistic classification model, or an elastic net classification model, and in particular a ridge regression classification model. The data demonstrated in the cohort investigated in the examples demonstrate that a ridge regression classification model with a regularization parameter of 1 can be used to obtain suitable coefficients or individual weights to apply to the DMR methylation values ​​as part of an additive linear score.

[0068] In certain embodiments relating to training a classification model using a plurality of samples obtained from patients previously determined to have or not have cancer, the cohort of training samples according to this embodiment of the invention comprises approximately equal proportions of the following samples: - a cell-free sample, such as a plasma sample, that has been previously determined to contain DNA from the cancer; - a tissue biopsy previously determined to contain DNA from the cancer, - acellular samples, such as plasma samples from healthy subjects and / or patients with other diseases, such as chronic liver disease or sepsis, and - tissue biopsy control samples from healthy subjects and / or patients with other diseases, such as chronic liver disease or sepsis, Includes.

[0069] To obtain statistically reliable values ​​of the coefficients and thresholds used in the predictive algorithm according to the invention, each of the above four subsets can be used in its entirety to train a classification model if present in approximately balanced numbers, or a large population can be subjected to repeated random undersampling of a balanced data set.

[0070] Certain embodiments relate to the use of logistic regression, particularly ridge regression analysis, to obtain a model algorithm that generates a risk score based on the sum of each selected DMR multiplied by an individual weighting value (coefficient). The individual weighting value according to the present invention reflects the ability of each DMR to distinguish between samples containing cancer and healthy control samples. The risk score can be compared to a threshold value that accurately separates samples containing DNA from cancer. The value of the individual weighting value is not particularly limited according to the present invention and depends on the DMR measurements selected for use in the predictive algorithm, the type of classification model used to develop the predictive algorithm, and the level of accuracy desired. Examples of such weighting values ​​are shown in Tables 1 to 7.

[0071] A threshold according to the present invention can be identified, for example, by finding the value or risk score with the highest F-score (Sorensen-Dice coefficient, or Dice similarity coefficient), or by finding the risk score value that discriminates cancer-derived samples from non-cancer-derived samples with the highest accuracy. In other words, the threshold applied to the risk scores obtained for a patient cohort with known cancer status achieves the highest precision and recall value, where perfect precision and recall is denoted by a value of 1. Particular embodiments of the present invention relate to thresholds where the classification of HCC patients achieves a recall of at least 90%, particularly greater than 93%, more particularly greater than 95%, and a precision of at least 95%. Such thresholds suitable for use in additive prediction scores utilizing methylation values ​​obtained from or applied to a particular subset of DMRs according to the present invention are shown in Tables 1 to 7.

[0072] In a particular embodiment of the measuring step according to the invention relating to the use of methylation levels determined for 20 to 38 DMRs in the additive linear risk score calculation, the absolute value of the threshold used in the assignment step is between 0.70 and 1.70, in particular between 1.00 and 1.50, more in particular the absolute value of the threshold is about 1.23.

[0073] Particular embodiments of the assignment process according to the invention relate to a low probability of having cancer, which is defined as about a 6% probability of having cancer, and / or a high probability of having cancer, which is particularly defined as about a 94% probability of having cancer.

[0074] Certain embodiments of the invention relate to the use of a patient sample selected from an exploratory biopsy of tissue suspected of containing cancer, and / or a sample of blood, plasma or serum taken from a patient, where DNA is first extracted from the sample and then treated with a deaminating agent to generate deaminated DNA.

[0075] Certain embodiments relate to the use of chemical reagents that selectively modify either the methylated or unmethylated forms of dinucleotide CpG sites present in DNA extracted from patient samples. The resulting modified CpGs can be detected directly or can be exposed to additional reagents that identify the modified sites. Selective modification of CpG sites can be achieved, for example, by treatment with hydrazine or bisulfite ions. Hydrazine-treated DNA can be targeted for cleavage with piperidine to identify CpG methylation.

[0076] Certain embodiments relate to the use of bisulfite-treated DNA in methylation assays, in particular to treating DNA obtained from patient samples with sodium bisulfite. This process converts cytidine residues to uracil and leaves 5-methylcytosine unmodified. The treated DNA can be further contacted with a nucleic acid probe designed to hybridize to either cytosine or uracil present at a particular site to distinguish between methylated or unmethylated loci, respectively. Probe binding can be assessed by quantitative techniques such as sequencing, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or methylation chip arrays, such as those from Illumina, used to measure DNA methylation levels in the patient sample population analyzed in the Examples. In embodiments relating to the use of DNA sequencing methods to obtain DNA methylation levels at CpG sites, methylated cytosines are indicated by the presence of cytosine, while unmethylated residues are read as thymine residues.

[0077] Methylation of CpG sites can be measured by methods sensitive to the methylation status of CpG dinucleotides known in the art, including, but not limited to, next generation sequencing, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or methylation arrays.

[0078] Certain embodiments relate to the use of beta methylation values ​​obtained using methylation arrays.

[0079] In some embodiments, the measuring step comprises contacting deaminated DNA prepared from the patient sample with a nucleic acid probe specific for a particular CpG site.

[0080] Certain embodiments involve contacting deaminated DNA prepared from a patient sample with a nucleic acid probe having a fluorescent label, such as, but not limited to, a nucleic acid probe of a methylation array or a TaqMan probe.

[0081] In some embodiments, a nucleic acid probe specific to one of the specific CpG sites is used in the sequencing reaction to determine the DNA methylation level at this CpG. In certain embodiments, two probes are used to specifically hybridize to the methylated and unmethylated sequences, thereby detecting and quantifying the methylated and unmethylated sequences. In such embodiments, one probe can be employed that is specific to the sequence resulting from a conversion reaction, such as achieved by an enzyme capable of converting unmethylated cytosine to uracil, or by bisulfite conversion, which similarly converts C to U. Another probe is employed to specifically hybridize to the methylation sites that are not affected by the conversion. The two probes can be labeled with different fluorescent dyes that are detectable in different fluorescent channels in the same reaction mix.

[0082] In nanopore detection, specific primers are used to amplify either the converted or unconverted sequence, respectively, which is then directly sequenced.

[0083] Certain embodiments of the method according to any one of the previous embodiments or aspects of the invention relate to a method comprising measuring DNA methylation levels of 8 to 20 of the DMRs defined in Table 1 in DNA extracted from a patient sample to determine whether a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) DNA methylation signature is present in the patient sample, wherein one of the DMRs is DMR1.

[0084] The present invention further encompasses the use of one or more nucleic acid probes which bind in a methylation-dependent manner to one or more of the defined CpG sites in each of three or more, particularly eight to ten or more, more particularly twenty or more of DMR1 to DMR38 defined above, for use in the manufacture of a kit for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma DNA status in a human tissue sample or acellular samples including plasma and serum.

[0085] In a particular embodiment, the kit is provided for periodic screening (particularly at annual, more particularly at twice-yearly intervals) of liquid blood samples obtained from patients diagnosed with cirrhosis to allow early detection of liver cancer.

[0086] In certain embodiments, the method according to the invention is applied to a sample obtained from a patient previously diagnosed with cirrhosis. In some particular embodiments, the sample is obtained from a patient diagnosed with Hepatitis C.

[0087] In a particular embodiment, the method according to the present invention is applied to samples obtained from patients previously diagnosed with liver cirrhosis to determine whether they are approaching or have already progressed to a type of liver cancer, particularly HCC.In a more particular embodiment, the method is applied to patients diagnosed with liver cirrhosis as a regular screening strategy, for example at 6-month intervals, to determine whether they are progressing to liver cancer, particularly HCC.In a particular embodiment, patients who are assigned a high probability of having cancer are recommended to undergo more invasive or expensive screening protocols, such as MRI or liver biopsy procedures.

[0088] A further aspect of the present invention relates to a pharmaceutical composition for use in treating patients who are assigned a high probability of having cancer by the method as described above, including patients who have previously been diagnosed with cirrhosis, and the composition comprises an anti-neoplastic therapeutic agent.When the above diagnostic method identifies patients, such as (but not limited to) cirrhosis patients with relatively advanced cancer, particularly when imaging diagnosis and tumor histopathological analysis are performed after the patient is assigned a high probability of having cancer, metastasis to organs other than the liver, portal vein invasion, or Performance Status classification 1 or 2 is assigned, a chemotherapeutic agent is provided.In certain embodiments, the chemotherapeutic agent is selected from lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, or sorafenib.In certain embodiments, the chemotherapeutic agent is sorafenib. In another embodiment, the agent is a checkpoint inhibitor selected from the group of antibodies reactive against checkpoint regulatory molecules included in the group: CTLA-4 (Uniprot P16410), PD-1 (Uniprot Q15116), PD-L1 (Uniprot Q9NZQ7), B7H3 (CD276; Uniprot Q5ZPR3), VISTA (Uniprot Q9H7M9), TIGIT (Uniprot Q495A1), TIM-3 (HAVCR2, Uniprot Q8TDQ0), CD158 (killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptor family), TGF-β (P01137).In certain embodiments, the agent is selected from the group consisting of ipilimumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb; CAS No. 477202-00-9), nivolumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb; CAS No. 946414-94-4), pembrolizumab (Merck Inc.; CAS No. 1374853-91-4), pidilizumab (CAS No. 1036730-42-3), atezolizumab (Roche AG; CAS No. 1380723-44-3), avelumab (Merck KGaA; CAS No. 1537032-82-8), durvalumab (Astra Zenaca; CAS No. 1428935-60-7), and semipilimab (Sanofi Aventis; CAS No. 1801342-60-8).

[0089] A further aspect of the invention relates to a method of treating a cirrhotic patient who has been assigned a high probability of having cancer by the methods outlined herein, in accordance with the clinical application of the recommendations provided by the Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer Staging System (Khorsandi SE, HBP Surgery 2012, 2012:154056, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference) in combination with the results of image analysis and / or histopathological tumor analysis.

[0090] The present invention encompasses a method for treating a patient who has previously been diagnosed with cirrhosis, and the patient is classified as likely to have cancer by the method defined in any one of the above aspects and embodiments.If the patient is classified as likely to have cancer, but not viral cirrhosis or alcoholic cirrhosis, then the patient is treated according to the clinical best practices for liver cancer treatment known in the art, that is, according to the order of applying the following late interventions from early to late: - excision surgery, - Liver transplant surgery, - Radiofrequency or microwave ablation, - Transarterial chemoembolization, - a chemotherapy agent selected from lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab or sorafenib, in particular sorafenib, and / or - immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors as disclosed herein, in particular ipilimumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb; CAS number 477202-00-9), nivolumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb; CAS number 946414-94-4), pembrolizumab (Merck Inc. CAS number 1374853-91-4), pidilizumab (CAS number 1036730-42-3), atezolizumab (Roche AG; CAS number 1380723-44-3), avelumab (Merck KGaA; CAS number 1537032-82-8), durvalumab (Astra Zenaca; CAS number 1428935-60-7), and cemiplimab (Sanofi Aventis; CAS number 1801342-60-8).

[0091] The described methods, as discussed herein, provide the ability to provide anti-tumor therapy to only those patients most likely to progress from cirrhosis to liver cancer, such as HCC or cholangiocarcinoma, by first determining whether a patient has a high probability of having cancer and then treating only those patients so classified.

[0092] Methods for treating a patient previously diagnosed with cirrhosis include: Determining the methylation level of 2 to 38, particularly 8 to 38, more particularly 8 to 20 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in an ex-vivo patient sample, particularly a liver biopsy and / or a blood, plasma or serum sample, selected from the list comprising or consisting of: - DMR1 containing CpG sites (cg)144855744, cg20547777, and / or cg16009311; - DMR2 including cg25366404, cg08864240, cg03422350, cg09655253, and / or cg10791278; - DMR3 including cg07003643, cg10904867, cg16996281, cg19560971, and / or cg09186818; - DMR4 including ccg17571559, cg09666573, cg11702866, cg17660833, and / or cg05551003; - DMR5 including cg14021523, cg07040024, and / or cg27088038; - DMR6 including cg06753985, cg02457346, and / or cg27146824; - DMR7 including cg16987638, cg22399984, cg09113474, and / or cg04206219; - DMR8 containing cg24932457, cg14430141, cg21577836, and / or cg09473826; - DMR9 including cg26550936, cg25140531, cg11882607, cg23482898, and / or cg08851782; - DMR10 containing cg27528748, cg27108629, and / or cg02475600; - DMR11 containing cg20511797, cg13847987, and / or cg13803765; - DMR12 including cg09754845, cg25029797, cg22646311, and / or cg06635328; - DMR13 including cg24224304, cg00512726, cg25936177, cg16179969, cg07726953, cg24569447, and / or cg10151685; - DMR14 including cg10759972, cg02860599, and / or cg08625822; - DMR15 including cg24202448, cg03920764, and / or cg09845293; - DMR16 including cg09816096, cg22151985, and / or cg08901057; - DMR17 including cg23551720, cg24095592, and / or cg03260240; - DMR18 including cg05469574, cg12432526, cg04172640, and / or cg06862949; - DMR19 including cg26134665, cg02043600, cg03793804, cg25033993, cg07537206, cg03144232, and / or cg05787209; - cg09343092, cg03368099, cg25390165, cg20817131, cg01323381, cg03744763, cg14013695, cg05774699, cg03207666, cg12015737, cg14058329, cg19643053, cg07049592, cg02106682, c DMR20, including g27151303, cg21641458, cg14882265, cg05579037, cg13694927, cg17432857, cg23454797, cg08070327, cg25506432, cg00969405, cg01748892, cg26023912, and / or cg16997642; - DMR21, including cg21591742, cg03918304, cg25371634, cg18115040, cg13217260, cg20649017, and / or cg17489939; - DMR22 including cg26465391, cg08668790, cg01268824, cg21790626, cg05661282, cg12506930, cg03142586, cg11294513, cg27049766, and / or cg03234186; - DMR23 including cg05105207, cg04024865, and / or cg01887388; - DMR24 including cg07003643, cg10904867, cg16996281, cg19560971, and / or cg09186818; - DMR25 including cg08992305, cg00393585, cg12861945, cg06481168, cg11630554, cg25904183, and / or cg20697094; - DMR26 including cg05670004, cg06999856, cg26768075, cg16692735, and / or cg02613809; - DMR27, including cg15699085, cg04071270, and cg06883126; - DMR28 including cg18512232, cg27110938, cg13806267, cg25877512, cg15909725, cg05033439, cg03134809, cg18431486, and / or cg01998856; - DMR29 including cg26882224, cg04886934, and / or cg17057098; - DMR30 including cg07481320, cg14931854, and / or cg24520538; - DMR31 including cg19885761, cg17847520, cg23495748, cg07295964, cg10312572, cg22776578, cg14648916, cg05958740, cg18909295, cg18328894, and / or cg15630459; - DMR32 including cg10237990, cg16800851, cg18411550, cg08358392, cg18798995, cg08106148, cg07826275, cg24516147, and / or cg09710740; - DMR33 including cg11044099, cg12120367, cg00583001, cg26831001, cg04600055, and / or cg17398515; - DMR34 including cg00603340, cg26600753, cg17279652, and / or cg12717963; - DMR35 including cg02532030, cg22136013, cg08313040, cg02375585, cg11715943, cg17664233, cg01309395, cg18927185, cg05547391, cg12208000, and / or cg15737123; - DMR36 including cg15712310, cg01635555, cg01744822, cg06984903, and / or cg01394847; - DMR37 including cg19846168, cg00779565, cg15203905, and / or cg23640231; - DMR38, including cg24428372, cg24737408, cg23900228, cg01144768, and / or cg22405774; wherein the methylation level of the DMR is the average methylation level of one or more CpG sites contained within the DMR providing a plurality of DMR methylation levels; and wherein the methylation level determined for DMR2, DMR4, DMR5, DMR9, DMR10, DMR14, DMR15, DMR16, DMR18, DMR23, DMR24, DMR28, DMR29, DMR35, and / or DMR37 indicates hypermethylation of that DMR; and / or wherein the methylation level determined for DMR1, DMR3, DMR6, DMR7, DMR8, DMR11, DMR12, DMR13, DMR17, DMR19, DMR20, DMR21, DMR22, DMR25, DMR26, DMR27, DMR30, DMR31, DMR32, DMR33, DMR34, DMR36, and / or DMR38 indicates hypomethylation of that DMR; Indicating that a patient has hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and then administering to the patient a treatment selected from the following list: - Surgical resection or liver transplantation; - Radiofrequency or microwave ablation; - an effective amount of a chemotherapeutic agent, in particular selected from lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab or sorafenib, more in particular sorafenib.

[0093] The present invention further encompasses the use of primers, and suitable oligonucleotide probes, as well as quantitative PCR and / or sequencing equipment for use in the manufacture of kits for detecting HCC.

[0094] The method may be performed by a computer-implemented method, in particular where the evaluating and allocating steps are performed by a computer.

[0095] Furthermore, the method can be implemented by a computer program comprising computer program code which, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform at least the evaluating and / or assigning steps. In particular, the results of the measuring step can be provided to the computer and / or the computer program by user input and / or by providing a computer readable file comprising information regarding the methylation levels obtained during the measuring step. The results from the measuring step can be stored in the computer's memory or in a non-transitory storage medium for further processing.

[0096] In another aspect, the present invention provides a system for determining the risk or likelihood that a subject has cancer. In a particular embodiment, the cancer is lung cancer, colon cancer, breast cancer, liver cancer. In a more particular embodiment, the system determines whether a liver disease patient has developed HCC or is at high risk of recurrence. In one embodiment, the system comprises a plurality of probes designed and configured (capable of revealing) a level of methylation, i.e., hypermethylation or hypomethylation, in differential methylation regions (DMRs) as identified herein. In a particular embodiment, the plurality of probes comprises a set of two probes per DMR, one capable of specifically hybridizing to a methylated sequence and the other capable of specifically hybridizing to a sequence generated from an unmethylated sequence by conversion. The system comprises an apparatus designed and configured to read out the signal level of each probe, as well as a computer (electronic computing device) and a computer program, the computer program comprising computer program code that, when executed on the computer, causes the computer to carry out the steps of the method according to any one of the aspects of the present invention outlined above. For example, an average methylation value may be calculated for redundant CpG probes within a DMR, or weights may be applied to the methylation levels of multiple DMRs and incorporated into the patent's classification algorithm.

[0097] In another embodiment, the system comprises a methylation array capable of detecting hypermethylation or its absence in differential methylation regions (DMRs), as identified herein.

[0098] Where alternative forms of a single separable feature, such as different subsets of DMRs, different selections of CpG sites within each DMR, or types of cancer, are presented herein as "embodiments," it is understood that such alternative forms may be freely combined to form separate embodiments of the invention disclosed herein. Thus, any of the alternative embodiments of DMRs may be combined with any of the alternative embodiments of types of cancer, and these combinations may be combined with any of the diagnostic methods described herein.

[0099] The present invention is further illustrated by the following examples and figures from which further embodiments and advantages can be derived, these examples being intended to illustrate the invention without limiting its scope.

[0100] Table 1 shows the 38 predictive differentially methylated regions (DMRs), the average weights (coefficients) identified using iterative ridge regression analysis, the DMR signature risk score threshold, and the performance recall and precision calculated using data from all 38 DMRs to classify samples in the test and training datasets. Also shown are the cluster annotations used for bioinformatics DMR identification, the genomic locations of the DMRs on the human reference genome 38 (hg38), the CpG sites measured by microarray probes evaluated within each DMR, and the relative average methylation of each DMR in HCC samples compared to non-HCC samples in the training and test datasets.

[0101] Table 2 shows the thresholds and performance of the DMR signature risk scores calculated for the mean weights (coefficients), standard deviations (StD), and recall and precision identified for a selection of 20 DMRs using the linear regression classifier ridge regression analysis as in Table 1. EXAMPLES

[0102] Example 1: DNA methylation datasets for HCC biomarker discovery To define a comprehensive set of DNA methylation biomarkers for detecting HCC from tissue and plasma cfDNA samples, we identified HCC association studies that characterize genome-wide DNA methylation changes using high-throughput Illumina-based Infinium 450K and EPIC assays. Training and test sets of 859 samples that matched the above defined criteria were collected from six different studies covering: HCC tissue and cfDNA samples from HCC patients; cirrhotic tissues from multiple etiologies and cfDNA from cirrhotic patients; healthy liver tissues; and other non-HCC disease tissues (e.g., hepatic obesity and α1-antitrypsin deficiency) and cfDNA from non-HCC patients (e.g., sepsis and other cancer types).

[0103] DNA methylation levels were measured for a total of 452,567 methylation sites (CpG sites), with methylation levels expressed using a β-methylation value, ranging from 0 (hypomethylated) to 1 (hypermethylated). All datasets were merged into a single matrix with signal intensities imported from the raw IDAT files and processed using a feature normalization pipeline (Fortin, JP et al., 2014, Genome Biol. 15:503). The ratio between the methylated and unmethylated channels was calculated and exported as a β-methylation value (β) [EQ1], rounded to 5 decimal places, with an offset of 100 (the recommended standard offset for Illumina methylation arrays):

number

[0104] For downstream analysis, several filtering steps were performed: (i) probes containing CpG sites with minor allele frequency (MAF) lower than 0.01 or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at single-base stretches were excluded from downstream analysis; (ii) cross-reactive probes of Illumina methylation arrays were removed using maxprobes R package (v0.0.2); (iii) CpG sites with missing values ​​were discarded; (iv) probes without updated probe annotations and available alignments mapped to the hg38 reference build were not considered; and (v) sex chromosomes X and Y were excluded from downstream analysis to focus on biomarkers of CpG sites that are independent of mapping to sex. The final filtered DNA methylation matrix covered a total of 390,445 CpG sites without any missing values ​​across all samples.

[0105] Additionally, a validation dataset containing 692 tissue samples was compiled from seven independent datasets for which the original data or publications were not available, but processed β-methylation values ​​were available. This validation dataset includes multiple studies with different experimental and analytical pipelines as an independent validation of the approach used in this study. Overall, the collected >1,500 whole-genome DNA methylation arrays represent a heterogeneous and comprehensive resource for discovering and validating DNA methylation biomarkers of HCC that are clinically relevant in disease settings such as cirrhosis.

[0106] Unsupervised selection of high-quality and informative DNA methylation regions HCC patient samples showed distinguishable patterns of multiple clustered CpG sites with hypomethylated and hypermethylated profiles. CpG clusters were defined as spanning at least three CpG sites, with two consecutive sites separated by at most 500 base pairs (bp) using the clusterMaker function in the Bump Hunter R package (v1.30.0). We considered only CpG clusters that overlapped with the filtered CpG sites defined above and had at least three measured CpG sites. A final matrix of CpG clusters was defined by taking the average of all filtered CpG sites within each cluster region, generating a matrix of DNA methylation spanning 39,868 CpG clusters. This was to reduce the influence of potential confounding factors and to focus on genomic regions rather than individual CpG sites to uncover robust and generalizable biomarkers of HCC.

[0107] Discovery of methylation regions predictive of HCC To distinguish HCC from the background of cirrhotic samples in tissue and cfDNA and to find methylation regions predictive of HCC, a linear support vector machine classifier (LinearSVC) was trained using a leave-one-out cross-validation strategy, leaving one sample at a time for predictive testing and using the other 858 samples as the training set.

[0108] By using a balanced dataset, differentially methylated and predictive regions were identified in a two-step approach. First, differentially methylated regions (DMRs) were identified by removing the effects of potential cofactors, i.e., sex, age, global methylation, and tumor purity. Then, a methylation differential analysis between HCC (HCC-T and HCC-CF) and cirrhosis (CT and C-CF) samples was performed, incorporating the aforementioned variables as covariates in a linear modeling order to account for their potential influence. Only significantly differentially methylated CpG clusters (likelihood ratio test FDR < 1%) were selected for model training.

[0109] DMRs are defined as CpG clusters with FDRs of less than 1% for proportion tests and analysis of variance. Thus, the median number of DMRs across the leave-one-out procedure is 1,355. A total of 88 samples, including equal proportions of HCC and cirrhosis, as well as cfDNA and tissue samples, were used for model training. To maximally retain the information associated with the smaller cfDNA sample set, when the cfDNA sample was analyzed, this sample was not used for training, thus reducing the total number of samples in each class to 21, and therefore using a total of 84 evenly distributed samples instead.

[0110] Assessment, comparison, and assembly of HCC methylation signatures To find the optimal number of DMRs for the predictive methylation signature, we sequentially tested adding DMRs to the feature set and evaluated the precision and reproducibility of the resulting LinearSVC model. The DMRs identified in the HCC samples were evaluated for their ability to predict HCC by training a linear support vector machine (LinearSVC) with L1 regularization, with the penalty parameter (C) set to 1.5, to reduce the number of DMRs considered in the model. The DMRs with nonzero weights in the trained model are then defined as the most predictive DMRs for classifying HCC samples. A median of 38 HCC predictive DMRs per model were identified over 859 leave-one-out iterations, where 150 unique DMRs were found in at least 5% (n=43) of all trained models. Recall and precision increased rapidly up to 10 DMRs, and the test and validation datasets showed small but consistent performance improvements thereafter. The top 38 most frequent DMRs in the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure, together with the fact that the frequency of each DMR in the optimal model is positively correlated with its absolute mean effect size (Figure 2 ).

[0111] The obtained DNA methylation signatures were analyzed and summarized in four publications (Villanueva A. et al., 2015. Hepatology 61:1945; Hlady RA et al., 2019. Theranostics 9:7239; Cheng J. et al., 2018. Genome Med. 10:42; Aran We compared our method with other similar approaches collected from the literature, including 13 sets of CpG sites from the 1990s (D. et al., 2015. Nat. Commun. 6:8971), and seven patents (Korean Patent (KR) No. 102103885 (B1); U.S. Patent Publication (US) No. 2019300965 (A1); US No. 20180216195 (A1); US No. 2020263256 (A1); Japanese Patent Publication (JP) No. 2018508228 (A1); JP No. 2018508228 (A2); US No. 20200299776 (A1)). To avoid potential methodological bias, we used an ensemble model that uses logistic and linear classification models, as opposed to the support vector machine model previously used. In this approach, we iteratively predict the HCC status of samples pulled for testing in a leave-one-out cross-validation. The performance of all models was estimated using multiple standard performance metrics, namely recall, precision, accuracy, Mathew's correlation coefficient (MCC), and balanced accuracy. The overall precision and recall scores for tissue samples were above 0.8 (Figure 3a), and the performance of all models dropped when predicting a subset of cfDNA samples, although precision was less affected (Figures 3a and 3b). We then used the validation tissue sample dataset as an independent benchmark and observed that the overall feature set provided an average of 96% precision and 86% recall (Figure 3c). Our test signature obtained the highest recall (95%) while maintaining the highest precision (98%) (Figure 3c).

[0112] This approach confirmed that the signature of hypermethylated and hypomethylated regions was able to successfully distinguish between cirrhotic, healthy, and other HCC samples, and positively benchmarked against other DNA methylation signatures, with low false negative rates, i.e., high recall, especially in both tissue and cfDNA samples.

[0113] Methylation diagnostic index for hepatocellular carcinoma Next, we used the top 38 DMRs, containing a total of 214 CpG sites (118 and 74 of which showed significant hypermethylation and hypomethylation in HCC, respectively (Figure 3d, Table 1)), to define a single index that could encompass information from the entire DNA methylation signature to be used as a diagnostic index for early detection of HCC.

[0114] We estimated the importance and variability of each DMR in this signature by randomly generating 1,000 balanced training datasets and training a linear regression classifier as above (Fig. 4a). We then created an additive linear score (DMR signature risk score) consisting of the sum of the methylation signatures of each of the 38 DMRs weighted by the signed average coefficient learned by each model. In other words, DMRs with higher absolute values ​​of the average coefficients across all trained models are more prominent in the score. Briefly, this linear risk score is the integrated score of the top 38 DMRs recursively present with nonzero weights in a linear support vector machine (LinearSVC) trained on the balanced sample set in leave-one-out cross-validation. The importance (weight) of each DMR was estimated using 1,000 permutations of the balanced dataset used to train a ridge classifier with the α parameter set to 1, ensuring regularization of the model's feature coefficients (individual weighted values) while keeping them non-zero. The mean and standard deviation of each DMR are then calculated across all 1,000 iterations. The average coefficients are then used in a weighted summation score where features with larger absolute scores are more favored in the linear DMR signature risk score. Based on this feature set and weights, a score is calculated for each sample. Recall and precision curves were created using the sample's risk scores and HCC status. The optimal thresholds, as well as precision and recall, are estimated based on the best possible F1-metric along the curves.

[0115] The top 38 DMRs were ranked by increasing importance (absolute mean coefficients, Table 1), and the precision and recall of the top 1–38 DMRs were tested by training on the training and test datasets and testing on the validation dataset. Again, precision remained relatively stable, while recall increased steeply from 8–10 DMRs, 10–22 showed a small but consistent performance improvement on the test and validation datasets, and from 22–38, a slight improvement can be inferred from the gradual stabilization of the evaluated metrics (Fig. 4b). The coefficients are estimated according to the selected subset of DMRs by fitting a ridge classifier with the regularization parameter α set to 1. This was done independently for each of the top 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 20, and 38 signatures, resulting in adjusted coefficients and thresholds for HCC classification (Tables 1, 2, Fig. 4b). The selected subset of DMRs was able to accurately classify HCC patients from healthy or cirrhosis controls, as indicated by recall and precision values. The model was trained using random undersampling of tissue biopsy HCC and cirrhosis samples, along with an equal number of HCC and cirrhosis liquid biopsy samples, to ensure that each class was similarly represented. Random undersampling was performed 1,000 times for each of the top 20 and top 38 signatures.

[0116] The DMR signature risk score was calculated for all samples in the test and training and validation datasets, and samples were ranked according to their likelihood of assignment to HCC. Linear risk scores were also estimated for other CpG site signatures, and it was observed that in the independent validation dataset, the score based on the DMR signature outperformed and provided highly accurate prediction of HCC (Fig. 4c). Moreover, for samples in the training and test datasets that were excluded from training the DMR signature and score, the DMR signature risk score clearly separated HCC and non-HCC samples, with a recall (sensitivity) of 86% and a precision of 83% (Fig. 5a, b).

[0117] Although cfDNA samples have a lower percentage of tumor-derived DNA compared to tumor biopsy samples, resulting in a noisier background for methylation signals, the ease of obtaining liquid samples such as plasma or blood compared to tissue biopsies makes them relevant for early diagnostic approaches. In addition to HCC and cirrhosis cfDNA samples, we also evaluated cfDNA samples from healthy controls, sepsis, and patients with cancer of other tissues such as lung, breast, and colon. Again, the HCC index clearly separated the HCC and cirrhosis samples from the cfDNA used to train the signature and score.

[0118] The DMR signature risk score, trained primarily on HCC cancer samples, was also able to perfectly identify cfDNA samples from other cancer patients compared to sepsis or healthy controls (recall 88%, precision 78%) (Fig. 5c and d), suggesting that the HCC biomarker detects methylation differences across multiple cancers. Overall, the risk score derived from the top 38 DMRs successfully classified HCC samples and identified 7 (of 11) cfDNA samples from other malignancies, including breast, lung, and colorectal cancer.

[0119] The linear risk score is a valuable indicator for the diagnosis of HCC with robust predictive power in many different datasets with heterogeneous backgrounds (Fig. 5e), and most importantly in both tissue and liquid biopsies (Fig. 6). The redundancy of the multiple CpG sites identified in each DMR was confirmed by performing random undersampling of either 1, 2, or 3 CpG sites contributing to the methylation levels of the top 8, 10, 20, or 38 DMRs. We observed that the recall increases with the number of top DMRs used, independent of the number of CpG sites considered per DMR (Fig. 7).

[0120] The resulting DMR signature risk score incorporates information from differentially methylated regions (DMRs) that encompass multiple consecutive CpG sites with similar methylation profiles, providing a robust biomarker for liquid biopsies and comparing favorably with multiple published and patented DNA methylation signatures of HCC.

[0121] [Table 1] JPEG2024519082000003.jpg232153JPEG2024519082000004.jpg229126 [Table 2] [Table 3] [Table 4] [Table 5] [Table 6] [Table 7]

Claims

1. A method for determining whether a patient has liver cancer, in particular a method for determining whether a patient has hepatocellular carcinoma, said method comprising the steps of: a. in a measuring step, determining the methylation levels of 2 to 38 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) in an ex-vivo sample from a patient, said ex-vivo sample being an exploratory biopsy of a tissue suspected of having cancer, and / or a blood, plasma, or serum sample taken from the patient; wherein the method comprises: DMR1 including CpG sites (cg)144855744, cg20547777, and / or cg16009311; and - DMR2 comprising cg25366404, cg08864240, cg03422350, cg09655253, and / or cg10791278; - DMR3 comprising cg07003643, cg10904867, cg16996281, cg19560971, and / or cg09186818; - DMR4 comprising cg17571559, cg09666573, cg11702866, cg17660833, and / or cg05551003; - DMR5 including cg14021523, cg07040024, and / or cg27088038; - DMR6 comprising cg06753985, cg02457346, and / or cg27146824; - DMR7 comprising cg16987638, cg22399984, cg09113474, and / or cg04206219; - DMR8 comprising cg24932457, cg14430141, cg21577836, and / or cg09473826; - DMR9 including cg26550936, cg25140531, cg11882607, cg23482898, and / or cg08851782; - DMR10 comprising cg27528748, cg27108629, and / or cg02475600; - DMR11 comprising cg20511797, cg13847987, and / or cg13803765; - DMR12 comprising cg09754845, cg25029797, cg22646311, and / or cg06635328; DMR13 including cg24224304, cg00512726, cg25936177, cg16179969, cg07726953, cg24569447, and / or cg10151685; - DMR14 comprising cg10759972, cg02860599, and / or cg08625822; - DMR15 comprising cg24202448, cg03920764, and / or cg09845293; - DMR16 comprising cg09816096, cg22151985, and / or cg08901057; - DMR17 comprising cg23551720, cg24095592, and / or cg03260240; - DMR18 comprising cg05469574, cg12432526, cg04172640, and / or cg06862949; - DMR19 including cg26134665, cg02043600, cg03793804, cg25033993, cg07537206, cg03144232, and / or cg05787209; - cg09343092, cg03368099, cg25390165, cg20817131, cg01323381, cg03744763, cg14013695, cg05774699, cg03207666, cg12015737, cg14058329, cg19643053, cg07049592, cg02106682, c DMR20, including g27151303, cg21641458, cg14882265, cg05579037, cg13694927, cg17432857, cg23454797, cg08070327, cg25506432, cg00969405, cg01748892, cg26023912, and / or cg16997642; - DMR21 comprising cg21591742, cg03918304, cg25371634, cg18115040, cg13217260, cg20649017, and / or cg17489939; DMR22 including cg26465391, cg08668790, cg01268824, cg21790626, cg05661282, cg12506930, cg03142586, cg11294513, cg27049766, and / or cg03234186; - DMR23 comprising cg05105207, cg04024865, and / or cg01887388; - DMR24 including cg07003643, cg10904867, cg16996281, cg19560971, and / or cg09186818; - DMR25 including cg08992305, cg00393585, cg12861945, cg06481168, cg11630554, cg25904183, and / or cg20697094; - DMR26 including cg05670004, cg06999856, cg26768075, cg16692735, and / or cg02613809; - DMR27, including cg15699085, cg04071270, and cg06883126; DMR28 including cg18512232, cg27110938, cg13806267, cg25877512, cg15909725, cg05033439, cg03134809, cg18431486, and / or cg01998856; - DMR29 comprising cg26882224, cg04886934, and / or cg17057098; - DMR30 comprising cg07481320, cg14931854, and / or cg24520538; DMR31 including cg19885761, cg17847520, cg23495748, cg07295964, cg10312572, cg22776578, cg14648916, cg05958740, cg18909295, cg18328894, and / or cg15630459; - DMR32 including cg10237990, cg16800851, cg18411550, cg08358392, cg18798995, cg08106148, cg07826275, cg24516147, and / or cg09710740; - DMR33 including cg11044099, cg12120367, cg00583001, cg26831001, cg04600055, and / or cg17398515; - DMR34 comprising cg00603340, cg26600753, cg17279652, and / or cg12717963; - DMR35 including cg02532030, cg22136013, cg08313040, cg02375585, cg11715943, cg17664233, cg01309395, cg18927185, cg05547391, cg12208000, and / or cg15737123; - DMR36 including cg15712310, cg01635555, cg01744822, cg06984903, and / or cg01394847; - DMR37 comprising cg19846168, cg00779565, cg15203905, and / or cg23640231; DMR38 comprising cg24428372, cg24737408, cg23900228, cg01144768, and / or cg22405774, determining the methylation level of at least one DMR selected from the list consisting of: the methylation level of the DMR is an average methylation level of one or more CpG sites contained within the DMR providing a methylation level of a plurality of DMRs; b. In the evaluation step, establishing the combined statistical significance of the multiple DMR methylation levels determined in said measuring step a. c. in the assigning step, assigning the patient a high probability of having liver cancer or a low probability of having liver cancer based on the combined statistical significance of the plurality of DMR methylation levels; The method comprising:

2. The patient is assigned a high probability of having liver cancer, - the methylation level determined for DMR2, DMR4, DMR5, DMR9, DMR10, DMR14, DMR15, DMR16, DMR18, DMR23, DMR24, DMR28, DMR29, DMR35, and / or DMR37 indicates hypermethylation of that DMR; and / or - the methylation level determined for DMR1, DMR3, DMR6, DMR7, DMR8, DMR11, DMR12, DMR13, DMR17, DMR19, DMR20, DMR21, DMR22, DMR25, DMR26, DMR27, DMR30, DMR31, DMR32, DMR33, DMR34, DMR36, and / or DMR38 indicates hypomethylation of that DMR; and - hypermethylation is characterized as a methylation level above the average methylation level of said DMR as determined in a plurality of control samples previously determined to be free of liver cancer cells, and hypomethylation is characterized as a methylation level below the average methylation level of said DMR; The method of claim 1.

3. In the evaluation step, the plurality of DNA methylation levels are subjected to a predictive algorithm that classifies samples according to the probability that the sample contains DNA from a cancer cell to obtain a risk score. The method according to claim 1 or 2.

4. In the assigning step, the risk score is compared to a threshold, - a risk score above the threshold indicates a patient has a high probability of having cancer; - a risk score below the threshold indicates that the patient has a low probability of having cancer; The method according to claim 3.

5. In the measuring step, the plurality of DMRs for which DMR methylation levels are determined further includes DMR4. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

6. The prediction algorithm is obtained by training a classification model; and The classification model has an equal number of: i. a plurality of liver cancer patient tissue samples, in particular HCC patient samples; ii. Multiple control samples, particularly a combination of chronic liver disease patient samples and healthy control samples; The method is trained using a plurality of methylation values ​​obtained from a plurality of patient samples with known cancer conditions, including iii. The method of claim 4 or 5, wherein each of the plurality of liver cancer patient tissue samples and the plurality of control samples comprises an equal number of tissue biopsy samples and acellular liquid biopsy samples, respectively.

7. In the allocating step, a low probability of having liver cancer is defined as a probability of having cancer of about 6%; and / or - a high probability of having liver cancer is specifically defined as a probability of having cancer of about 94%; The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

8. Obtaining a patient sample selected from an exploratory biopsy of tissue suspected of containing cancer, and / or a blood, plasma, or serum sample taken from the patient; and - extracting DNA from said sample, and - treating the extracted DNA with a deaminating agent to produce deaminated DNA; The method according to any one of claims 1 to 7, comprising:

9. 9. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the methylation value of a given CpG site is determined using a method selected from next generation sequencing, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or a methylation array, in particular said methylation value is a beta methylation value obtained using a methylation array.

10. The method of any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the patient sample is a plasma sample.

11. The method of any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the patient sample is an exploratory biopsy sample of tissue suspected of having cancer.

12. The method of any one of claims 1 to 11, wherein the cancer is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

13. 1. A system for determining whether a patient has liver cancer, in particular a system for determining whether a patient has hepatocellular carcinoma, comprising: - a set of probes designed and constructed to reveal the methylation level of a DMR according to claim 1 or 5; - a device designed and constructed to read the signal of the probe; and a computer and a computer program comprising computer program code which, when the computer program is executed on a computer, causes the computer to carry out the steps of the method defined in claim 2, 3 or 4, The system comprising:

Images