
==== Front
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench
Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench
GHFBB
Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench
2008-2258
2008-4234
Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran

10.22037/ghfbb.v17i3.2978
Systematic Review
Advances in blood DNA methylation-based assay for colorectal cancer early detection: a systematic updated review
Khabbazpour Milad 1
Tat Masoud 1
Karbasi Ashraf 2
Abyazi Mohammad Ali 2
Khodadoustan Ghazal 3
Heidary Zohreh 4
Zaki-Dizaji Majid 1
1 Human Genetics Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Baqiyatallah Research Center for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases (BRCGL), Clinical Sciences Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Faculty of biological science and technology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
4 Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Reprint or Correspondence: Majid Zaki-Dizaji, PhD, Human Genetics Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: majid.zakidizaji@gmail.com
2024
17 3 225240
2 4 2024
4 7 2024
© 2024, Gastroenterology and Hepatology From Bed to Bench (GHFBB)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits others to copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
Aim:

A systematic review was conducted to summarize the methylated circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) markers reported over the last decade for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to identify the main technical challenges that are impeding their clinical implementation.

Background:

CRC is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide, but early detection is key for successful treatment. Non-invasive methods such as methylated ctDNA testing show promise for improving detection and monitoring of CRC.

Methods:

A comprehensive search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus up to December 30, 2023, limited to articles published in the last 10 years (after 2012), while including advanced adenoma/stage 0 or stage I/II samples in biomarker validation.

Results:

After identifying 694 articles, removing duplicates and screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 62 articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Among the single biomarkers, MYO1-G, SEPT9, SDC2, and JAM3 revealed the highest sensitivity for polyps and stage I/II CRC. For multi-biomarkers with suitable sensitivity, combinations of SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, PRIMA1, or ALX4, BMP3, NPTX2, RARB, SDC2, SEPT9, VIM or ZFHX4, ZNF334, ELOVL2, UNC5C, LOC146880, SFMBT2, GFRA1 were identified for polyps and stage I/II CRC.

Conclusion:

Enhancing sensitivity and specificity of molecular screening methods is crucial for improving CRC detection. Identifying a select few valuable biomarkers is key to reducing costs, despite challenges posed by low ctDNA levels in plasma, particularly in early-stage cancers.

Key Words

Colorectal cancer
Circulating tumor DNA
DNA methylation
Liquid biopsy
Cancer biomarker
Early detection
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Despite advances in detection and treatment methods, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly cancer and the third most common malignant tumor among men and women worldwide (1, 2). CRC survival rates are closely linked to early detection, which ranges from a 90% five-year survival rate in stage I disease to 10% five-year survival in stage IV disease (3). Approximately 60% of CRC patients at diagnosis present with either locally advanced lesions or distant metastases. This advanced stage unfortunately precludes surgical intervention, significantly impacting treatment options and prognosis (4, 5). Since developing malignant lesions from precancerous lesions (adenomas) is a long process (6), it allows CRC to be detected early by screening (7). Early detection of CRC leads to successful treatment, and proactive screening helps reduce its incidence.

Colonoscopy is widely considered the gold standard for diagnosing CRC, but it has limitations such as invasiveness, cost, and patient discomfort, and may not always detect early-stage lesions (8). Molecular biomarkers for CRC detection are currently limited, and non-invasive stool-based tests such as fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), as well as blood-based protein biomarkers like CEA and CA19, have shown reduced sensitivity and specificity (9). Most patients (83%) prefer blood-based tests over stool-based tests (10). Liquid biopsies, especially blood-based ones, are gaining interest and are seen as the future of cancer screening (11, 12).

The development of CRC is linked to genetic mutations, epigenetic changes, environmental factors, and non-modifiable risk factors such as age, family history, and personal medical history. Liquid biopsies can detect these cancer-related progressive build-up of genetic and epigenetic alterations in plasma DNA (13). However, the identification of mutations for early cancer diagnosis is limited by the frequency and diversity of mutations gained throughout cancer development in CRC patients (14, 15). Epigenetic alterations, particularly DNA methylation, are mostly constant, occur before gene mutations in tumor development (16), with blood/tissue paired studies in CRC showing good tissue and tumor type specificity (17). These aberrant DNA methylations, as a most prevalent epigenetic alteration, can be effectively detected in numerous types of biological samples such as blood, tissue, and stool. Thus, Methylated circulating tumor DNA (mctDNA) can be a valuable source for tumor DNA in the diagnosis, prognosis, and surveillance of tumors (18), with potential applications in therapeutic interventions (19).

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA), generally at approximately 167 bp in length, is fragmented double helix DNA found in the blood circulation. It comprises nucleic acids released into body fluids through active release, apoptosis, necrosis, or other cell death processes. CfDNA in blood circulation has a short half-life of about 15 minutes to 2.5 hours, which allows ongoing surveillance of tumors (20), where the concentration of cfDNA in plasma is 1-10 ng/mL (often <20ng/ml) in healthy individuals, mostly from the hematopoietic system (21, 22). This concentration can be higher in patients with cancer (23) and also in diseases other than cancer (20). CtDNA is a subset of cfDNA that originates from tumor cells and contains unique genetic as well as epigenetic markers of the tumor (24). Compared to cfDNA, which primarily reflects apoptotic cell debris with a characteristic length of ~150-200 bp (coinciding with nucleosome size), ctDNA exhibits substantial heterogeneity. Its fragment size often exceeds 200 bp and can even reach >1000 bp, likely due to impaired apoptotic pathways in cancer cells (25). Further, the ctDNA fraction within cfDNA varies widely between 0.05% and 93% (20, 26).

Currently, several epigenetic in vitro diagnosis (IVD) tests are being added to the market for CRC screening (Table 1). The Cologuard® (27) is the first stool DNA-based test, and the Epi proColon® (28) is the first blood DNA-based test approved by the FDA for early CRC detection. Beyond commercially available kits, researchers have reported a diverse array of methylation-specific PCR assays for CRC detection. Primarily, these encompass potential biomarkers for diagnosis, yet they also include markers aimed at evaluating tumor burden, detecting disease relapse, and estimating patient prognosis. Due to the importance and fast-growing knowledge of blood-based biomarkers, in this article, we review all investigated blood DNA methylation-based biomarkers over the last 10 years to have an updated overview of improvements and directions for research. Although CRC-related epigenetic biomarkers were reviewed in several articles with different points of view (8, 17, 29-31), we aim to gather only blood-based epigenetic biomarkers.

Methods

Search strategy

A comprehensive search up to December 30, 2023, limited to articles published in the last 10 years (after 2012), which included AA/stage 0 or stage I/II samples in biomarker validation, written in English, was performed exploiting three main electronic libraries: Web of Science® Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia/London, USA/GB), PubMed® (National Library of Medicine’s, Bethesda, MD, USA), and Scopus® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL, USA). The employed keywords were “colorectal cancer,” “colorectal neoplasms,” “circulating tumor DNA,” “cfDNA,” “Cell-free DNA,” “biomarker,” “DNA methylation,” “cancer screening,” “cancer detection,” “diagnosis,” “early detection,” “adenoma,” “plasma,” “serum,” or “liquid biopsy.” The investigation utilized these specific terms to navigate through the keywords, titles, and abstracts of scholarly articles. Additionally, the bibliographies of all accessed full-text articles and significant reviews were meticulously examined to uncover further relevant research. The study was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) (32).

Table 1 Commercially available Epigenetic IVD/RUO tests for CRC

Tests	Sample	Biomarker target	Sensitivity (%)	SPE (%)	Company	
CRC	I/II	III/IV	HGD	AA	
Cologuard (27, 68, 69)	Stool	NDRG4, BMP3, 7 KRAS mutations	92			69	42	87	Exact Sciences	
Epi proColon (28, 70)	Blood	SEPT9	75–81	71-77			22	96–99	Epigenomics	
Colosafe (63, 71-73)	Stool	SDC2	81- 91	87	95	80	42-58	86 - 98	Creative Biosciences	
EarlyTect (74, 75)	Stool	SDC2	90	89			67	90	EarlyTect	
Colodefense (45-47)	Blood	SEPT9, SDC2	89				48	93	VersaBio	
Stool	88-92				55-67	93	
ColoSure™ (76)	Stool	Vimentin	72-77					83-94	Labcorp	
ColonSecure (64)	Blood	149 markers	86					90%	-	
AA: advanced adenoma, HGD: polyps with high-grade dysplasia, CRC: colorectal cancer

Study selection

The articles were initially screened based on their titles and abstracts to eliminate any irrelevant studies. They were then categorized into three groups: include, exclude, or unclear. For the "unclear" articles, the full-text versions were examined and placed into one of the other two categories: include or exclude. All full-text manuscripts were evaluated to determine if they met the eligibility criteria, which included being written in English, focusing on human subjects, methylation testing at least one ctDNA biomarker in CRC patients, and offering a detailed description of the patients and detection rate of assays. Studies that used animal models, reviews, congress abstracts, or articles in languages other than English were excluded. If needed, the corresponding authors of the selected published reports were contacted.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, collecting information such as publication year, number of patients, demographic details, and clinical and laboratory data for methylation evaluation. Duplicate cases were identified and eliminated, and the medical records from all papers were compiled and consolidated. In the event of any disagreements between the two reviewers, a third author was consulted.

Results

Study characteristics

A comprehensive literature search identified 694 articles. Following deduplication, 173 articles were screened by title and abstract, leading to the exclusion of 120. Hand-searching of full-text articles and major reviews yielded an additional 9 articles. As illustrated in Figure 1, 61 articles ultimately met the inclusion criteria and proceeded to full-text assessment.

Based on the nature of the study, the collected studies are presented in three categories. The "Genome-wide methylation studies" part discusses high throughput studies that were centered on biomarker identification, whereas the "Single methylation-based ctDNA biomarker" and "Multi-methylated ctDNA biomarker" sections deal with single or multi-biomarker validation.

Figure 1 Study selection flow chart.

Genome-wide methylation studies

Genome-wide methylation studies provide the most valuable and straightforward solution for de novo biomarker discovery. Most de novo biomarker-finding studies were accomplished on tissue, cell lines, or fecal samples (Table 2). Twenty-one studies used different sample sources and methods to discover novel methylated ctDNA (mctDNA) biomarkers in CRC for diagnosis, prognosis, and metastasis or therapy monitoring. Some of them used previously reported data from TCGA and GSE databases (15, 33-36) on cell lines and tissue samples. CpG microarray analysis is the most prevalent method for genome-wide methylation analysis. Nevertheless, recently sequencing-based methods have provided more hope to find suitable biomarkers for CRC. Methylation-specific quantitative PCR (MS-qPCR), digital PCR (dPCR), or droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) mostly have been used for the verification of selected biomarkers. Most of the studies used CRC tissues and paired matched normal tissue adjacent to the tumor (PNAT/MNAT) to discover biomarkers; however, it seems the best strategy is to simultaneously array or sequence both tissue and blood samples. Wang et al. (37) conducted a study on the overlapping markers between tissue DNA and cfDNA in advanced adenoma (AA) and early-stage CRC. They identified seven DNA methylation biomarkers that can be used to monitor the malignant progression from AA to CRC. However, it is important to note that their tissue and blood samples were not matched. Although high-throughput analysis such as simultaneously analyzing fragment length and methylation profiles gives a high AUC (0.989) with good sensitivity (96.8) and specificity (97%) in detecting CRC (38) and could provide high accuracy for early-stage CRC detection, it is expensive and computational analysis is also required. Hence, it is necessary to achieve a cost-effective set of biomarkers that possess the appropriate level of sensitivity and specificity for regular use in CRC screening and monitoring.

Single methylation-based ctDNA biomarker

Totally, 22 studies examined single methylated ctDNA biomarkers in blood-based samples (plasma, serum, or a combination of them) which included AA/stage 0 or stage I/II. SEPT9 biomarker was the most studied biomarker and methylation-specific-qPCR is the method of choice for most of the methylation analysis. Twelve studies included polyp (adenoma or advanced adenoma) samples, 9 studies included polyps and stage I-III samples, and 8 studies included stage I-III without polyps’ samples (Table 3). Still, SEPT9 totally had the highest sensitivity and specificity among biomarkers (39) for CRC, while if we consider polyp and stage I/II CRC, MYO1-G (40), SEPT9 (39, 41), JAM3 (42) showed the highest sensitivity. MYO1-G revealed 74-86% sensitivity and 94% specificity in 50 patients with stage I/II CRC (40). SEPT9 indicated 23-31% (24 patients) sensitivity for advanced adenoma, 40% (12 patients) sensitivity for polyps, and 64-88% (67 patients) sensitivity for stage I/II CRC (39, 41). JAM3 showed AUC=0.8611 (P<0.001) and interestingly methylation rate in stage I/II CRC (81.96%) was greater than in stage III/IV CRC (Table 3).

Multi-methylated ctDNA biomarker

We considered a biomarker panel any evaluation of two or more methylated genes. Totally, 17 studies investigated multitarget methylated ctDNA in blood-based samples (plasma or serum). Two studies used 32 (43) and 191 (44) CpG sites to evaluate CRC samples. The most used method was qMSP; also ddPCR, MS-HRM, and NGS were used to methylation profiles. Most studies have included mSEPT9 and/or mSDC2 markers whose combination has been produced as a ColoDefense® kit. Colodefense is a stool/blood-based DNA hypermethylation screening test for CRC with SEPT9 and SDC2 assessment that has been approved by the China Food and Drug Administration. ColoDefense® showed 89% sensitivity for CRC and 48% sensitivity for advanced adenoma with 93% specificity (45-47).

The highest sensitivity for detection of polyps (adenoma, advanced adenoma) was reported in 4 biomarkers, SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, and PRIMA1 (48). Bartak et al, in a small sample size with 37 advanced adenoma tissues, showed 89% sensitivity. Another study with 191 CpG sites (44) in a large sample with 182 AA revealed 79% sensitivity. For the detection of stage I/II CRC, 100% sensitivity and 78% specificity were reported for SEPT9 and SDC2 biomarkers (49). Seven biomarkers (50), ALX4, BMP3, NPTX2, RARB, SDC2, SEPT9, and VIM, showed 89% sensitivity, and another seven DNA-Methylation Marker (37) with unpublished biomarkers indicated 87% sensitivity.

Discussion

CRC has high mortality rates, underscoring the need for effective screening tools to enhance early detection and improve curability. While colonoscopy is the gold standard with sensitivity rates exceeding 95% for CRC and 88-98% for precancerous lesions (AA), its drawbacks, such as invasiveness, discomfort, sedation requirements, risks of bowel damage and infection, and cost contribute to low patient adherence. Sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography offer high sensitivity rates (95% and 90% for CRC and precancerous lesions, respectively) but also require uncomfortable bowel preparation (51, 52). Fecal tests such as FOBT, guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) and FIT have lower sensitivity rates (33–75%) and are more suitable for detecting advanced colorectal abnormalities. In addition, current tumor markers such as CEA and CA19-9 have limitations in diagnosing CRC, highlighting the need for novel, non-invasive, and highly sensitive detection methods (52). Recent progress in circulating DNA methylation analysis shows promise in identifying both CRC and precancerous lesions.

Tumor-specific methylation changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), particularly in blood leukocytes, may reflect those seen in cancerous tissues, indicating their potential as novel early cancer biomarkers. However, the clinical significance of PBMC methylation in cancer diagnosis and patient prognosis remains uncertain (53). Studies have shown that a substantial portion of plasma cfDNA comes from hematopoietic lineages, particularly leukocyte genomic DNA, in individuals with or without cancer (22). This poses a challenge as it raises the risk of false-positive results in detecting mutations and methylation markers. The high prevalence of mutations in both normal and cancerous tissue limits their usefulness as early-stage cancer biomarkers due to insufficient specificity (54, 55). However, recently, Chen et al. (2021) demonstrated that the leukocyte’s gDNA will not affect the performance of the plasma methylated-ctDNA test, and methylation markers effectively distinguish CRC from benign tumors and healthy controls, while leukocyte levels of these markers lacked discriminatory power (49). They verified the performance of the ColoDefense test, consisting of methylated SEPT9 (mSEPT9) and methylated SDC2 (mSDC2), in plasma and the paired leucocyte fraction of 213 blood sample from CRC patients, adenomatous polyps’ patients, hyperplastic polyp patients, and control subjects. It is also worth noting that, when compared to tissue, cfDNA has a lower methylation quantity, which may be useful in their differentiation (56).

Table 2 Biomarker discovery through genome-wide methylation studies

Year/
Ref	Serum/ Plasma Samples	Method of biomarker Discovery / Verification	Selected biomarker	AUC/ SEN, SPE%	AUC/ SEN, SPE% in stages	
CRC/ Adenoma	Normal	
		Tissue			
2013 (77)	S:32 (6I/II, 26III/IV), 26A	161	Illumina Goldengate array (Tissue, stool, Serum, I-IV) / MS-qPCR	NPY, PENK, WIF1	SEN:87, SPE:80		
2013 (78)	S:131(94I, 5II, 17III,15IV)	125	Discovery: MeDIA with microarray (Tissue I-IV, PNAT), Verification: MS-qPCR	SDC2	SEN:87, SPE:95.2	I: SEN:92	
2015 (79)	P:353(42I, 140II, 108III, 63IV)		Discovery: HM450 array (Tissue/PNAT, 23 MSI/MSS CRC), Verification: MS-qPCR	AGBL4, FLI1, TWIST1	SEN:93 any gene	SEN for I & II: 90 any gene	
2018 (80)	P:45		Discovery: HM450 array of tissue (18 C, 21 A, 7 N), Verification: Pyrosequencing	GRIA4, SLC8A1 and SYN3	-	-	
2019 (81)	P: 256 (41I, 143II, 55III, IV17)	178	Discovery: HM450 array (Tissue)
Verification: ddPCR	C9orf50, KCNQ5, CLIP4	SEN:85, SPE:99	I:80, II: 85, III: 89, IV: 88	
2020 (82)	P:22	20	Discovery: SureSelectXT Methyl-Seq (Tissue/PNAT), Verification: ddPCR	CLDN1, INHBA SLC30A10	SEN:41, SPE:100		
2021 (83)	44 P	44	Discovery: Targeted array (Tissue/PNAT)
Verification: MS-qPCR & MSRE-qPCR	WT1, PENK, SPARC,
GDNF, TMEFF2, DCC	AUC: >0.80 any gene	-	
		Plasma			
2014 (84)	P: 30 (11I, 19II)	30	Discovery: microarray (56 gene, Plasma)
Verification: MS-qPCR	CYCD2, HIC, VHL	AUC: 0.93,
SEN:83, SPE:94		
2018 (85)	S:20 (7I,13II), 20 AA	20	Discovery: MethylationEPIC (Plasma)	1384 CpG sites	-	-	
2021 (86)	13 P	16	Discovery: MBD-seq (Plasma)	CLIP4, LONRF2, RNF217			
2021 (87)	P: 248 (66I, 86II, 62III, 34IV), 40A, 68AA	133	Discovery: Enrichment & HiSeq Sequencing of Plasma	11 markers	AUC:0.92(88-0.96)
CRC	0.77 A, 0.85AA, 0.9 I	
2022 (88)	P: 5 (I), 5 A		Discovery: MethylationEPIC (HM850)	1865 differently methylated CpG sites	-	-	
2022 (89)	4 P (2III, 2IV)	3	Discovery: MeDIP‑seq	PRDM14, RALYL, ELMOD1, TMEM132E	-	-	
2023 (44)	P: 590, 182 AA	366	Discovery: targeted bisulfite sequencing (ColonES assay)	191 regions	AA SEN: 79, CRC SEN: 87, SPE: 88	0.903AA, 0.937 CRC	
		Bioinformatics			
2018 (34)	P: 182	50	Discovery: TCGA and GEO cell/tissue data (HM450 array), Verification: dPCR	EYA4, GRIA4, ITGA4, MAP3K14-AS1, MSC	AUC: 0.86	-	
2020 (15)	P: 801	1021	Discovery: TCGA and GSE data
Verification: ddPCR	cg10673833	AUC:0.90
SEN:90, SPE: 87	-	
2020 (35)	P:117 (17I,24II,33III,23IV)	60	Discovery: TCGA and GEO data
Verification: ddPCR	FAM123A, GLI3, PPP1R16B, SLIT3,
TMEM90B	SEN:58, SPE:95	SEN:50 I-III, 96 IV, SPE: 95	
2022 (36)	47 (7III, 30IV, 6), 41AA	81	Discovery: TCGA and GEO tissue data
Verification: MS-qPCR	LINC00473	AUC; CRC:0.88, AA: 0.84		
		Cell line			
2014 (90, 91)	P: 120 (12I, 30II, 12III, 66IV)	96	Discovery: MeDIP (cell lines)
Verification: MS-PCR, pyrosequencing	PPP1R3C, EFHD1	SEN:90, SPE:64		
2017 (92)	P: 95 (10I, 22II, 48III, 15IV)	47	Discovery: MeDIP‑seq in NCM460 cell line	CBS	-	-	
		Tissue, Plasma			
2022 (37)	P: 218 (43I, 56II, 50III, 69IV), 88AA		Discovery: AnchorIRIS™ sequencing (Tissue, Plsama)	ZFHX4, ZNF334, ELOVL2, UNC5C, LOC146880, SFMBT2,
GFRA1	AUC: 0.92, SEN:90, SPE:90
CRC VS AA		
CRC: Colorectal cancer; NA: Not ascertained; P/MNAT: paired,matched normal tissue adjacent to the tumor; MS-RE: methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme–based; MeDIP‑seq: immunoprecipitation coupled with high‑through‑put sequencing; P: plasma; S: serum; SEN: sensitivity, MBD-seq: methyl-CpG-binding domain sequencing, MeDIA: methylated DNA isolation assay; SPE: specificity,

Table 3 Individual biomarker studies

	Year/ref	marker	Serum/ Plasma Samples	Method	Polyp	Stage I/II	Stage III/IV	Total	
			CRC	Polyp	Normal		SPE %	SEN %	AUC	SPE %	SEN %	AUC	SPE %	SEN%	AUC	SEN
%	SPE %	AUC	
1	2022 (36)	LINC00473	P:47	AA:41	81	qMSP
ddPCR			0,84										
2	2022 (93)	RASSF1A	P: 92 (15I, 24II, 22III, 31IV)	67 CRP	-				0.75			I(0.83)
II(0.87)			III(0.87)
IV(0.86)				
3	2022 (94)	SEPT9	EORC:27(4I,1II,5III,12IV)		87											90.8	96.3		
4	2021 (95)	SHISA3	P: 30 (8I, 10II, 10III, 2IV)	-	9	BSP	-	-	-	-	I(4.78)
II(5.96)	-	-	III(7.02)
IV(5.2)	-	-	-	0.50	
5	2021 (40)	MYO1-G	P: 305 (3I, 32II, 85III, 185IV)	-	307	ddPCR	-	-	-	95.4	I(85.7)
II(74.4)	-	95.4	III(83.2)
IV(86.8)	-	84.3	95.4	0.94	
6	2021 (41)	SEPT9	P: 53 (14I,16II,9III,14IV)	48AA, 30A	48	qMSP		88.2		83.3	84.9								
7	2020 (39)	SEPT9	P: 90 (18I, 27II, 26III, 10IV)	13AA	81	qMSP	AA
(96.3)	AA
(30.8)	-	-	I (77.8)
II (85.2)	-	-	III(92.3)
IV(80.0)	-	85.6	90.1	0.88	
8	2020 (96)	NEUROG1	S:16 (6I, 4II, 6III)	89AA, 17A	33	qMSP	-	AA (32.8)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	33.33	90.6	-	
9	2019 (42)	JAM3	P:18 (1I, 4II, 7III, 3IV,3)		18	qMSP				-	I/II (81.96)			III/IV
(73.36)		61			
10	2019 (97)	SFRP2	S: 62 (13I,27II,17III,5IV)	7AA	55	qMSP	AA (87.3)	AA (42.9)	-	-	I (46.2)
II (74.1)	-	-	III(70.6)
IV(100)	-	69.4	87.3	0.82	
11	2019 (98)	RUNX3	S:85 (9I, 39II, 34III, 3IV)	40A	40	qMSP	17.5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	82.5	60	
12	2019 (98)	SFRP1	S:85 (9I, 39II, 34III, 3IV)	40A	40	qMSP	30	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	70	77.6	
13	2018 (99)	BMP3	P:50	40A	50	qMSP										40	94		
14	2018 (100)	MGMT	S: 30 (4I, 17II, 5III, 1IV)		40	MSP											90		
15	2017 (101)	SEPT9	P:85	364 A, 216 AA	324	qMSP		A (38.7),
AA (47.0-62.5)											
16	2016 (102)	SST	P: 165 (26I, 62II, 62III, 15IV)	-		qMSP													
17	2015 (103)	NDRG4	P: 154 (43I, 44II, 46III, 21IV)	_	444	qMSP	-	-	-	95	I (16)
II (11)	-	95	III (35)
IV (62)	-	27	95	0.61	
18	2015 (103)	FOXE1	P: 154 (43I, 44II, 46III, 21IV)	_	444	qMSP	-	-	-	93	I (35)
II (43)	-	93	III (50)
IV (67)	-	46	93	0.70	
19	2015 (103)	SYNE1	P: 154 (43I, 44II, 46III, 21IV)	_	444	qMSP	-	-	-	96	I (28)
II (52)	-	96	III (76)
IV (47)	-	47	96	0.72	
20	2015 (103)	GATA5	P: 154 (43I, 44II, 46III, 21IV)	_	444	qMSP	-	-	-	99	I (14)
II (9)	-	99	III (48)
IV (18)	-	18	99	0.59	
21	2014 (104)	SEPT9	P: 34 (6I, 11II, 11III, 5IV)	26A	24	qMSP	-	30.8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	88.2	-	-	
22	2014 (105)	VIM	S: 242 (7 0, 36I, 73II, 74III, 49IV)		25	qMSP	-	0 (57.1)	-	-	I (30.6)
II (28.8)	-	-	III(35.1)
IV(32.7)	-	32.6	-	-	
23	2014
(106)	SEPT9	P:44 (39 I-III, 5 IV)	621AA	444	qMSP	-	AA
(22)	-	-	I/II (64)	-	-	III(64)
IV(100)	-	68	78.8	-	
24	2014
(107)	CAHM	P: 73 (12I, 21II, 23III, 12IV)	73A	74	qMSP	-	4	-	-	I (42)
II (52)	-	-	III(52)
IV(75)	-	55	93	-	
25	2014
(108)	SEPT9	P: 53 (22I, 14II, 12III, 5IV)	209A
314AA	1457	qMSP	-	A(7.7)
AA(9.6)	-	-	I (36.4)
II (57.1)	-	-	III(58.3)
IV(80.0)	-	50.9	91.5	-	
26	2013 (109)	PCDH10	S:63(12I,26II, 17III, 8IV)			qMSP	-	-	-	-	62.7	-	-	-	-				
CRC: Colorectal cancer; NA: Not ascertained; P: plasma; S: serum; SEN: sensitivity, SPE: specificity; A: Adenoma; AA: Advanced adenoma; MSP: Methylation-specific PCR; qMSP: Methylation-specific qPCR, CRP: colorectal polyp, BSP: bisulfite sequencing PCR, EOCRC:early-onset colorectal cancer

Table 4 Multi-biomarker studies

	Year/ref	Marker	Serum/ Plasma Samples	Method	Polyp	Stage I/II	Stage III/IV	Total	
			CRC	Polyp	Normal		SEN
%	SPE
%	AUC	SEN
%	SPE
%	AUC	SEN
%	SPE
%	AUC	AUC	SPE%	SEN%	
1	2023 (110)	SDC2, NPY, IKZF1, SEPT9	P: 124 (5 0, 36I, 34II, 45III, 3IV)	137AA	164	ddPCR	AA (7)	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	92	44	
2	2023 (111)	GALNT9/UPF3A		27	21	NGS	78.6			I (87.5)
II (100)			III(100)
IV(33.3)				100	78.8	
3	2023 (44)	191 CpG sites	590	182AA	366	NGS	AA (79.0)	_	AA (0.90)	I (85.1)
II (79.3)	_	_	IV(91.8)	_	_	0.93	88.1	86.6	
4	2022 (37)	Seven DNA-Methylation Marker	P: 218 (43I, 56II, 50III, 69IV)	88AA	_	NGS	_	AA (89.66)		I (87.5)
II (93.75)	_	_	III(88)
IV(92.8)	_	_	0.86	97		
5	2022 (43)	32 CpG sites	P: 20		4	NGS	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_		92	85	
6	2022 (112)	FBN1, SPG20	P:62	8	50	MS-HRM	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	0.94	97	91.1	
7	2021 (83)	35 CpG sites		16	40	MSRE- qPCR	63.0	88.0	0.80										
8	2021 (49)	SEPT9, SDC2	P: 91 (4 0, 9I, 31II, 29III, 4IV)	49A, 27AA	38	qMSP	0 (50)	_		I (100)
II (76.9)	_		III(85.7)
IV(100)	_		0.97	86.8	85.7	
9	2021 (113)	C9orf50, TWIST1, KCNJ12, ZNF132	P:35	2A, 22AA	32	qMSP										0.91	97	80	
10	2021 (114)	SEPT9, SDC2, BCAT1	P: 104	83A,47AA	60	qMSP	Polyps
(4.4)	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	0.91	96.9	82.7	
11	2018
(115)	Uc160, Uc283 and Uc346	P: 50	59A	40	qMSP	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	0.63	74.3	45	
12	2017
(50)	ALX4, BMP3, NPTX2, RARB, SDC2, SEPT9, VIM	P:193	33A	102	qMSP				88.7	73.5	0.85	_	_	_	0.86	72.5	90.7	
13	2017
(48)	SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, PRIMA1	P: 7	37A	47	qMSP	89.2	86.5	0.93	_	_	_	_	_	_	0.97	97.3	91.5	
14	2015
(116)	BCAT1, IKZF1	P:129 (29I, 42II, 40III, 16IV)	346A, 338AA	1291	qMSP	AA (6)	_		I /II (56)	_		79	_			94	66	
15	2015
(103)	SYNE1 and FOXE1	P:66 (27I, 15II, 20III, 4IV)	_	240	qMSP	_	_	_	I (37)
II (87)	_		III (55)
IV (100)	_			91	58	
16	2015
(117)	GATA5, SFRP2	P: 57	30A	47	MSP	26.77	91.49	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	_	91.49	42.86	
17	2013
(118)	TAC1, SEPT9	S:26(I)		26	qMSP	_	_	_	I (73.1)	I (92.3)	I (82.1)	_	_	_	_	_	_	
CRC: Colorectal cancer; NA: Not ascertained; P: plasma; S: serum; SEN: sensitivity, SPE: specificity; A: Adenoma; AA: Advanced adenoma; MSP: Methylation-specific PCR; qMSP: Methylation-specific qPCR , MethylLight Droplet Digital PCR (ML-ddPCR), Methylation-Sensitive Restriction Enzyme (MSRE)

Compared to plasma, serum demonstrates a marked increase in the total quantity of cfDNA and displays significantly higher integrity. This observation suggests the presence of contaminating genomic DNA (gDNA) potentially introduced during serum separation via clotting processes. Thus, plasma is favored for cfDNA analyses since serum cfDNA has elevated gDNA (57). Despite variations in ctDNA abundance, several studies demonstrate equivalent sensitivity for detecting KRAS, TP53, BRAF, and SMAD4 mutations in both plasma and serum of breast cancer patients (58).

In ctDNA assays, plasma is the preferred biofluid over serum due to reduced contamination with non-tumor cfDNA. Serum preparation involves blood clotting, which induces leukocyte lysis and release of their cfDNA. This non-tumor cfDNA dilutes ctDNA, particularly those with low allele fraction mutations, potentially hindering their detection and compromising assay sensitivity (59). Therefore, current National Cancer Institute (NCI) Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch Biospecimen Evidence-Based Practices (BEBP) guidelines for cfDNA analysis in biospecimens recommend shorter durations of pre-analytical storage at room temperature. Specifically, they suggest a maximum of 2–4 hours for EDTA tubes and up to 3 days for preservative tubes before initiating plasma isolation and subsequent storage at −80 °C (60).

Bisulfite sequencing (BS-seq) has been widely regarded as the gold standard for quantifying DNA methylation at a base-level resolution. MS-qPCR is the most commonly employed method, followed by MS-PCR (Tables 3 and 4). Methods for profiling methylation at specific genomic locations have progressed to encompass a broader genomic scope through the use of high-throughput sequencing or array-based approaches. This expansion enables a more comprehensive analysis of the genome and the discovery of aberrations that had not been detected before (61) (Table 2). Several detection methods, including ddPCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), have expanded the options for detecting genetic alterations in trace amounts of cfDNA. However, the sensitivity and specificity of the markers used remain critical factors for accurate detection, particularly in early cancer screening tests. NGS technologies, capable of local deep BS-seq, offer the highest sensitivity for detecting DNA methylation at the single-molecule level; however, when analyzing a limited number of samples, qPCR remains the simplest and most frequently utilized method for DNA methylation detection (20).

There is a limited report of paired evaluation of stool/plasma samples in patients. Meanwhile, patients greatly preferred noninvasive testing, and most of them (83%) preferred a blood-based test over a stool-based test (10). However, normally stool samples showed higher sensitivity in comparison to plasma samples (44). The mSEPT9 showed higher sensitivity in stool samples vs. plasma samples while having a similar specificity (39). Similarly, mSFRP2 demonstrated greater sensitivity in tissue and stool samples compared to plasma samples. However, the methylation of SFRP2 in serum revealed markedly higher specificity for distinguishing CRCs from benign adenomas, as opposed to the methylation levels of SFRP2 found in tumor and fecal DNA (62). The methylation test for SDC2 in stool samples outperformed the mSEPT9 blood test in the detection of nonmetastatic CRC and adenomas (63). Epi proColon, with its improved edition Epi proColon 2.0, was developed using the methylation status of SEPT9 in plasma ctDNA and received FDA approval (28). However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) does not endorse it as an initial screening approach due to its low sensitivity for CRC (48%) including early-stage CRC (35%) and AA (11.2%). Fortunately, a more advanced formulation of this biomarker, Epi proColon 2.0, has been recently introduced, exhibiting enhanced sensitivity and specificity. This development has heightened expectations for the discovery of an optimal blood-based biomarker. Colodefense (45-47) with detection of SEPT9, and SDC2 biomarkers, and ColonSecure (64) with 149 biomarkers are other kits introduced for blood-based CRC screening. Present commercial blood-based tests have a low sensitivity for AA ranging from 22% (Epi proColon) to 48% (Colodefense) and for I/II stage ranging within 71-77% (Epi proColon) (Table 1).

SEPT9 and Syndecan-2 (SDC2) are the two most studied biomarkers in CRC detection. Here we discuss these two biomarkers specifically. MSEPT9 methylation in plasma/serum demonstrated variable sensitivity (47-87%) and high specificity (89-98%) across diverse studies. While sensitivity increased with advanced CRC stages (reaching 100% in some stage IV reports), it remained suboptimal in the early stages (I-II) (17). Furthermore, mSEPT9's sensitivity for detecting adenomas and polyps is suboptimal in most studies, ranging from 8 to 40%. Notably, combining FOBT and mSEPT9 assessment achieved a remarkable 100% sensitivity for stage I CRC identification (65). While SDC2 methylation shows promise as a biomarker for early CRC detection, its stage specificity appears limited. Assay sensitivity is demonstrably higher for advanced (stage III/IV) disease compared to early (stage I/II) stages, suggesting a potential need for further optimization for improved sensitivity in early detection applications (8). It seems co-analyzing of SEPT9 and SDC2 showed a superior detection rate for stage I/II (49). Another single biomarkers with high sensitivity for polyp and stage I/II CRC include MYO1-G (40), SEPT9 (39, 41), and JAM3 (42) showed the highest sensitivity. Multi-biomarkers with suitable sensitivity for polyp and stage I/II CRC include SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, PRIMA1 combination (48), 191 CpG sites (44), ALX4, BMP3, NPTX2, RARB, SDC2, SEPT9, VIM combination (50), and another seven markers (37).

Logically, the detection rate of CRC will grow with increasing the number of biomarkers for analysis. However, there is a discrepancy within studies (Table 1 and 2) which may be related to sample size, heterogeneity of samples, and even the location of CpG island in biomarkers (66). Although the studies and reported biomarkers showed the invaluable potential of blood-based methylation assays for CRC early detection even before dysplasia, identifying potential biomarkers and combinational strategy is an urgent need today.

Conclusion and future perspective

Compared to immunoaffinity tests such as FIT, PCR-based DNA tests offer superior sensitivity for detecting molecular markers, particularly in early-stage CRC. Despite the higher costs associated with these tests, their increased sensitivity may outweigh this factor due to the significant potential for early diagnosis to save lives and reduce costs. In this study, we presented promising biomarkers such as MYO1-G and JAM3, in addition to SEPT9 and SDC2. Multi-biomarker assays, while offering increased sensitivity, may also lead to higher costs. Combinations of biomarkers such as SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, PRIMA1, or ALX4, BMP3, NPTX2, RARB, SDC2, SEPT9, VIM, or ZFHX4, ZNF334, ELOVL2, UNC5C, LOC146880, SFMBT2, and GFRA1 have been identified for polyps and stage I/II CRC. However, these molecular screening methods still require enhancements in sensitivity and specificity to maximize their clinical utility.

Early tumor detection using ctDNA methylation faces critical limitations. Low ctDNA abundance in plasma, particularly in early-stage cancers, hinders efficient capture for methylation analysis. Innovations such as Droplet digital PCR or deep sequencing methods utilizing larger volumes of plasma may help overcome this challenge.

Despite numerous studies indicating tumor-specific methylation changes, their validity remains uncertain. Most of these alterations are limited to individual studies lacking independent sample validation. So only a small fraction has advanced through clinical trials and commercialization for CRC detection. Another limitation of current research is the small number of patients included, hindering the discovery of clinically significant biomarker candidates. Genome-wide methylome profiling offers a powerful solution, providing comprehensive and reproducible data to unlock the true potential of methylation biomarkers. Future large-scale studies or the integration of existing methylome-level data will be necessary to identify biomarkers that are reliable enough for clinical application.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
==== Refs
References

1 Xie YH Chen YX Fang JY Comprehensive review of targeted therapy for colorectal cancer Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020 5 1 30 32296011
2 Cao W Chen HD Yu YW Li N Chen WQ Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: a secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020 Chin Med J 2021 134 783 91 33734139
3 Kuipers EJ Grady WM Lieberman D Seufferlein T Sung JJ Boelens PG Colorectal cancer Nat Rev Dis Primers 2015 1 15065 27189416
4 van der Pool AE Damhuis RA Ijzermans JN de Wilt JH Eggermont AM Kranse R Verhoef C Trends in incidence, treatment and survival of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a population-based series Colorectal Dis 2012 14 56 61 21176063
5 Kow AWC Hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer J Gastrointest Oncol 2019 10 1274 98 31949948
6 Nguyen LH Goel A Chung DC Pathways of Colorectal Carcinogenesis Gastroenterology 2020 158 291 302 31622622
7 Provenzale D Ness RM Llor X Weiss JM Abbadessa B Cooper G NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Version 2 2020 J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020 18 1312 20 33022639
8 Anghel SA Ioniță-Mîndrican CB Luca I Pop AL Promising epigenetic biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review Cancers 2021 13 35008178
9 Shaukat A Levin TR Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 19 521 31 35505243
10 Adler A Geiger S Keil A Bias H Schatz P deVos T Improving compliance to colorectal cancer screening using blood and stool based tests in patients refusing screening colonoscopy in Germany BMC Gastroenterol 2014 14 183 25326034
11 Ignatiadis M Sledge GW Jeffrey SS Liquid biopsy enters the clinic - implementation issues and future challenges Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2021 18 297 312 33473219
12 Razzaghi H Khabbazpour M Heidary Z Heiat M Moghaddam ZS Derogar P Emerging role of tumor-educated platelets as a new liquid biopsy tool for colorectal cancer Arch Iran Med 2023 26
13 Hossain MS Karuniawati H Jairoun AA Urbi Z Ooi J John A Colorectal cancer: a review of carcinogenesis, global epidemiology, current challenges, risk factors, preventive and treatment strategies Cancers 2022 14 36612015
14 Kandoth C McLellan MD Vandin F Ye K Niu B Lu C Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types Nature 2013 502 333 9 24132290
15 Luo H Zhao Q Wei W Zheng L Yi S Li G Circulating tumor DNA methylation profiles enable early diagnosis, prognosis prediction, and screening for colorectal cancer Sci Transl Med 2020 12
16 Sprang M Paret C Faber J CpG-Islands as Markers for Liquid Biopsies of Cancer Patients Cells 2020 9 33375150
17 Nassar FJ Msheik ZS Nasr RR Temraz SN Methylated circulating tumor DNA as a biomarker for colorectal cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction Clin Epigenetics 2021 13 111 34001239
18 Summers T Langan RC Nissan A Brücher BL Bilchik AJ Protic M Serum-based DNA methylation biomarkers in colorectal cancer: potential for screening and early detection J Cancer 2013 4 210 6 23459561
19 Kulis M Esteller M In: Herceg Z Ushijima T 2 - DNA Methylation and Cancer Advances in Genetics 2010 Academic Press 27 56
20 Hu Z Chen H Long Y Li P Gu Y The main sources of circulating cell-free DNA: Apoptosis, necrosis and active secretion Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2021 157 103166 33254039
21 Yao W Mei C Nan X Hui L Evaluation and comparison of in vitro degradation kinetics of DNA in serum, urine and saliva: a qualitative study Gene 2016 590 142 8 27317895
22 Snyder MW Kircher M Hill AJ Daza RM Shendure J Cell-free DNA comprises an In Vivo nucleosome footprint that informs its tissues-of-origin Cell 2016 164 57 68 26771485
23 Zill OA Banks KC Fairclough SR Mortimer SA Vowles JV Mokhtari R The Landscape of actionable genomic alterations in cell-free circulating tumor DNA from 21,807 advanced cancer patients Clin Cancer Res 2018 24 3528 38 29776953
24 Wu Z Yu L Hou J Cui L Huang Y Chen Q Plasma cfDNA for the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer J Oncol 2022 2022 9538384 35685424
25 Giacona MB Ruben GC Iczkowski KA Roos TB Porter DM Sorenson GD Cell-free DNA in human blood plasma: length measurements in patients with pancreatic cancer and healthy controls Pancreas 1998 17 89 97 9667526
26 Luo H Wei W Ye Z Zheng J Xu RH Liquid biopsy of methylation biomarkers in Cell-Free DNA Trends Mol Med 2021 27 482 500 33500194
27 Imperiale TF Ransohoff DF Itzkowitz SH Levin TR Lavin P Lidgard GP Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening N Engl J Med 2014 370 1287 97 24645800
28 Lamb YN Dhillon S Epi proColon((R)) 2 0 CE: a blood-based screening test for colorectal cancer Mol Diagn Ther 2017 21 225 32 28155091
29 Müller D Győrffy B DNA methylation-based diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in colorectal cancer Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2022 1877 188722 35307512
30 Galoș D Gorzo A Balacescu O Sur D Clinical applications of liquid biopsy in colorectal cancer screening: current challenges and future perspectives Cells 2022 11 36611806
31 Fatemi N Tierling S Es HA Varkiani M Mojarad EN Aghdaei HA DNA methylation biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Clinical applications for precision medicine Int J Cancer 2022 151 2068 81 35730647
32 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Br Med J 2021 372 n71 33782057
33 Lange CP Campan M Hinoue T Schmitz RF van der Meulen-de Jong AE Slingerland H Genome-scale discovery of DNA-methylation biomarkers for blood-based detection of colorectal cancer PLoS One 2012 7 50266
34 Barault L Amatu A Siravegna G Ponzetti A Moran S Cassingena A Discovery of methylated circulating DNA biomarkers for comprehensive non-invasive monitoring of treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer Gut 2018 67 1995 2005 28982739
35 Cho NY Park JW Wen X Shin YJ Kang JK Song SH Blood-Based Detection of Colorectal Cancer Using Cancer-Specific DNA Methylation Markers Diagnostics 2020 11 33374672
36 Ruiz-Bañobre J Rodriguez-Casanova A Costa-Fraga N Bao-Caamano A Alvarez-Castro A Carreras-Presas M Noninvasive early detection of colorectal cancer by hypermethylation of the LINC00473 promoter in plasma cell-free DNA Clin Epigenetics 2022 14 86 35810318
37 Wang W Zhang X Zhu X Cui W Ye D Tong G Seven DNA methylation biomarker prediction models for monitoring the malignant progression from advanced adenoma to colorectal cancer Front Oncol 2022 12 827811 35646690
38 Nguyen HT Khoa Huynh LA Nguyen TV Tran DH Thu Tran TT Khang Le ND Multimodal analysis of ctDNA methylation and fragmentomic profiles enhances detection of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer Future Oncol 2022 18 3895 3912 36524960
39 Liu Y Zhao G Miao J Li H Ma Y Liu X Performance comparison between plasma and stool methylated SEPT9 tests for detecting colorectal cancer Front Genet 2020 11 324 32373158
40 Lin WH Xiao J Ye ZY Wei DL Zhai XH Xu RH Circulating tumor DNA methylation marker MYO1-G for diagnosis and monitoring of colorectal cancer Clin Epigenetics 2021 13 232 34961566
41 Jin S Zhu D Shao F Chen S Guo Y Li K Efficient detection and post-surgical monitoring of colon cancer with a multi-marker DNA methylation liquid biopsy Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021 118 2017421118
42 Zhou D Tang W Zhang Y An HX JAM3 functions as a novel tumor suppressor and is inactivated by DNA methylation in colorectal cancer Cancer Manag Res 2019 11 2457 70 30988641
43 Gouda MA Duose DY Lapin M Zalles S Huang HJ Xi Y Mutation-agnostic detection of colorectal cancer using liquid biopsy-based methylation-specific signatures Oncologist 2023 28 368 372 36200910
44 Mo S Dai W Wang H Lan X Ma C Su Z Early detection and prognosis prediction for colorectal cancer by circulating tumour DNA methylation haplotypes: A multicentre cohort study EClinicalMedicine 2023 55 101717 36386039
45 Zhao G Liu X Liu Y Li H Ma Y Li S Aberrant DNA Methylation of SEPT9 and SDC2 in Stool specimens as an integrated biomarker for colorectal cancer early detection Front Genet 2020 11 643 32625237
46 Zhao G Li H Yang Z Wang Z Xu M Xiong S Multiplex methylated DNA testing in plasma with high sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer screening Cancer Med 2019 8 5619 28 31407497
47 Dai Y Zhao G Yang J Zhou X Xiong S Lu X A simplified multiplex methylated DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer in stool DNA BMC Gastroenterol 2022 22 428 36203138
48 Barták BK Kalmár A Péterfia B Patai Á V Galamb O Valcz G Colorectal adenoma and cancer detection based on altered methylation pattern of SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, and PRIMA1 in plasma samples Epigenetics 2017 12 751 63 28753106
49 Chen Z Zhao G Wang K Wang X Ma Y Xiong S Blood leukocytes methylation levels analysis indicate methylated plasma test is a promising tool for colorectal cancer early detection J Cancer 2021 12 3678 85 33995643
50 Rasmussen SL Krarup HB Sunesen KG Johansen MB Stender MT Pedersen IS Hypermethylated DNA, a circulating biomarker for colorectal cancer detection PLoS One 2017 12 0180809
51 Simon K Colorectal cancer development and advances in screening Clin Interv Aging 2016 11 967 76 27486317
52 Swiderska M Choromanska B Dabrowska E Konarzewska-Duchnowska E Choromanska K Szczurko G The diagnostics of colorectal cancer Contemp Oncol 2014 18 1 6
53 Li Y Fan Z Meng Y Liu S Zhan H Blood-based DNA methylation signatures in cancer: A systematic review Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis 2023 1869 166583 36270476
54 Razavi P Li BT Brown DN Jung B Hubbell E Shen R High-intensity sequencing reveals the sources of plasma circulating cell-free DNA variants Nat Med 2019 25 1928 37 31768066
55 Hu Y Ulrich BC Supplee J Kuang Y Lizotte PH Feeney NB False-positive plasma genotyping due to clonal hematopoiesis Clin Cancer Res 2018 24 4437 43 29567812
56 Bedin C Enzo MV Del Bianco P Pucciarelli S Nitti D Agostini M Diagnostic and prognostic role of cell-free DNA testing for colorectal cancer patients Int J Cancer 2017 140 1888 98 27943272
57 Trigg RM Martinson LJ Parpart-Li S Shaw JA Factors that influence quality and yield of circulating-free DNA: A systematic review of the methodology literature Heliyon 2018 4 e00699 30094369
58 Mijnes J Tiedemann J Eschenbruch J Gasthaus J Bringezu S Bauerschlag D SNiPER: a novel hypermethylation biomarker panel for liquid biopsy based early breast cancer detection Oncotarget 2019 10 6494 508 31741713
59 Pittella-Silva F Chin YM Chan HT Nagayama S Miyauchi E Low SK Nakamura Y Plasma or serum: which is preferable for mutation detection in liquid biopsy? Clin Chem 2020 66 946 57 32516802
60 Greytak SR Engel KB Parpart-Li S Murtaza M Bronkhorst AJ Pertile MD Moore HM Harmonizing cell-free dna collection and processing practices through evidence-based guidance Clin Cancer Res 2020 26 3104 9 32122922
61 Li Y Tollefsbol TO DNA methylation detection: bisulfite genomic sequencing analysis Methods Mol Biol 2011 791 11 21 21913068
62 Tang D Liu J Wang DR Yu HF Li YK Zhang JQ Diagnostic and prognostic value of the methylation status of secreted frizzled-related protein 2 in colorectal cancer Clin Invest Med 2011 34 88 95
63 Zhan Y Wang S Yuan Z Zhao X Ni K Xin R The stool syndecan2 methylation test is more robust than blood tests for methylated septin9, CEA, CA19-9 and CA724: a diagnostic test for the early detection of colorectal neoplasms Transl Cancer Res 2023 12 65 77 36760372
64 Zhao F Bai P Xu J Li Z Muhammad S Li D Efficacy of cell-free DNA methylation-based blood test for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk population: a prospective cohort study Mol Cancer 2023 22 157 37770864
65 Xie L Jiang X Li Q Sun Z Quan W Duan Y Diagnostic value of methylated Septin9 for colorectal cancer detection Front Oncol 2018 8 247 30013949
66 Massen M Lommen K Wouters KAD Vandersmissen J van Criekinge W Herman JG Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers Clin Epigenetics 2022 14 56 35477541
67 Clebak KT Nickolich S Mendez-Miller M Multitarget stool DNA testing (Cologuard) for colorectal cancer screening Am Fam Physician 2022 105 198 200 35166507
68 Stürzlinger H Conrads-Frank A Eisenmann A Invansits S Jahn B Janzic A Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer: systematic review using the HTA Core Model(®) for rapid relative effectiveness assessment Ger Med Sci 2023 21 06
69 Shirley M Epi proColon(®) for colorectal cancer screening: a profile of its use in the USA Mol Diagn Ther 2020 24 497 503 32557236
70 Wang J Liu S Wang H Zheng L Zhou C Li G Robust performance of a novel stool DNA test of methylated SDC2 for colorectal cancer detection: a multicenter clinical study Clin Epigenetics 2020 12 162 33126908
71 Niu F Wen J Fu X Li C Zhao R Wu S Stool DNA test of Methylated Syndecan-2 for the early detection of colorectal neoplasia Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017 26 1411 9 28619831
72 Wang X Xu P Shen H Tao Y Liu X Cao H A novel stool-based SDC2 DNA methylation test is more robust than FIT and plasma CEA in detecting colorectal neoplasia in China Am J Transl Med 2021 5 37 50
73 Beltran-Garcia J Osca-Verdegal R Mena-Molla S Garcia-Gimenez JL Epigenetic IVD tests for personalized precision medicine in cancer Front Genet 2019 10 621 31316555
74 Kim CW Kim H Kim HR Kye BH Kim HJ Min BS Colorectal cancer screening using a stool DNA-based SDC2 methylation test: a multicenter, prospective trial BMC Gastroenterol 2021 21 173 33858326
75 Ned RM Melillo S Marrone M Fecal DNA testing for colorectal cancer screening: the ColoSure™ test PLoS Curr 2011 3 Rrn1220 21487548
76 Roperch JP Incitti R Forbin S Bard F Mansour H Mesli F Aberrant methylation of NPY, PENK, and WIF1 as a promising marker for blood-based diagnosis of colorectal cancer BMC Cancer 2013 13 566 24289328
77 Oh T Kim N Moon Y Kim MS Hoehn BD Park CH Genome-wide identification and validation of a novel methylation biomarker, SDC2, for blood-based detection of colorectal cancer J Mol Diagn 2013 15 498 507 23747112
78 Lin PC Lin JK Lin CH Lin HH Yang SH Jiang JK Clinical relevance of plasma DNA methylation in colorectal cancer patients identified by using a genome-wide high-resolution array Ann Surg Oncol 2015 22 1419 27
79 Fadda A Gentilini D Moi L Barault L Leoni VP Sulas P Colorectal cancer early methylation alterations affect the crosstalk between cell and surrounding environment, tracing a biomarker signature specific for this tumor Int J Cancer. 2018 143 907 20 29542109
80 Jensen S Øgaard N Ørntoft MW Rasmussen MH Bramsen JB Kristensen H Novel DNA methylation biomarkers show high sensitivity and specificity for blood-based detection of colorectal cancer-a clinical biomarker discovery and validation study Clin Epigenetics 2019 11 158 31727158
82 Pulverer W Kruusmaa K Schönthaler S Huber J Bitenc M Bachleitner-Hofmann T Multiplexed DNA methylation analysis in colorectal cancer using liquid biopsy and its diagnostic and predictive value Curr Issues Mol Biol 2021 43 1419 35 34698107
83 Melson J Li Y Cassinotti E Melnikov A Boni L Ai J Commonality and differences of methylation signatures in the plasma of patients with pancreatic cancer and colorectal cancer Int J Cancer 2014 134 2656 62 24288256
84 Gallardo-Gómez M Moran S Páez de la Cadena M Martínez-Zorzano VS Rodríguez-Berrocal FJ Rodríguez-Girondo M A new approach to epigenome-wide discovery of non-invasive methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer screening in circulating cell-free DNA using pooled samples Clin Epigenetics 2018 10 53 29686738
85 Huang J Soupir AC Schlick BD Teng M Sahin IH Permuth JB Cancer detection and classification by CpG island hypermethylation signatures in plasma cell-free DNA Cancers 2021 13 35008178
86 Wu X Zhang Y Hu T He X Zou Y Deng Q A novel cell-free DNA methylation-based model improves the early detection of colorectal cancer Mol Oncol 2021 15 2702 14 33694305
87 Wu YL Jiang T Huang W Wu XY Zhang PJ Tian YP Genome-wide methylation profiling of early colorectal cancer using an Illumina Infinium Methylation EPIC BeadChip World J Gastrointest Oncol 2022 14 935 46 35582104
88 Zhang X Li T Niu Q Qin CJ Zhang M Wu GM Genome-wide analysis of cell-Free DNA methylation profiling with MeDIP-seq identified potential biomarkers for colorectal cancer World J Surg Oncol 2022 20 21 35065650
89 Takane K Midorikawa Y Yagi K Sakai A Aburatani H Takayama T Kaneda A Aberrant promoter methylation of PPP1R3C and EFHD1 in plasma of colorectal cancer patients Cancer Med 2014 3 1235 45 24861485
90 Yagi K Akagi K Hayashi H Nagae G Tsuji S Isagawa T Three DNA methylation epigenotypes in human colorectal cancer Clin Cancer Res 2010 16 21 33 20028768
91 Xue G Lu CJ Pan SJ Zhang YL Miao H Shan S DNA hypomethylation of CBS promoter induced by folate deficiency is a potential noninvasive circulating biomarker for colorectal adenocarcinomas Oncotarget 2017 8 51387 401 28881655
92 Li J Li H Run ZC Wang ZL Jiang T An Y Li Z RASSF1A methylation as a biomarker for detection of colorectal cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma World J Gastrointest Oncol 2022 14 1574 84 36160746
93 Loomans-Kropp HA Song Y Gala M Parikh AR Van Seventer EE Alvarez R Methylated Septin9 (m SEPT9): a promising blood-based biomarker for the detection and screening of early-onset colorectal cancer Cancer Res Commun 2022 2 90 8 35992328
94 Tang SH Hsiao CW Chen WL Wu LW Chang JB Yang BH Hypermethylation of SHISA3 DNA as a blood-based biomarker for colorectal cancer Chin J Physiol 2021 64 51 6 33642344
95 Otero-Estévez O Gallardo-Gomez M Cadena MP Rodríguez-Berrocal FJ Cubiella J Ramirez VH Value of serum NEUROG1 methylation for the detection of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer Diagnostics 2020 10 33374618
96 Li H Wang Z Zhao G Ma Y Chen Y Xue Q Performance of a MethyLight assay for methylated SFRP2 DNA detection in colorectal cancer tissue and serum Int J Biol Markers 2019 34 54 9 30852954
97 Pasha HF Radwan MI Yehia AM Toam MM Circulating methylated RUNX3 and SFRP1 genes as a noninvasive panel for early detection of colorectal cancer Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 31 1342 9 31524773
98 Rokni P Shariatpanahi AM Sakhinia E Kerachian MA BMP3 promoter hypermethylation in plasma-derived cell-free DNA in colorectal cancer patients Genes Genom 2018 40 423 8
99 Alizadeh Naini M Kavousipour S Hasanzarini M Nasrollah A Monabati A Mokarram P O6-Methyguanine-DNA Methyl Transferase (MGMT) promoter methylation in serum DNA of Iranian patients with colorectal cancer Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018 19 1223 7 29801405
100 Song L Peng X Li Y Xiao W Jia J Dong C The SEPT9 gene methylation assay is capable of detecting colorectal adenoma in opportunistic screening Epigenomics 2017 9 599 610 28470092
101 Liu Y Chew MH Tham CK Tang CL Ong SY Zhao Y Methylation of serum SST gene is an independent prognostic marker in colorectal cancer Am J Cancer Res 2016 6 2098 108 27725914
102 Melotte V Yi JM Lentjes MH Smits KM Van Neste L Niessen HE Spectrin repeat containing nuclear envelope 1 and forkhead box protein E1 are promising markers for the detection of colorectal cancer in blood Cancer Prev Res 2015 8 157 64
103 Tóth K Wasserkort R Sipos F Kalmár A Wichmann B Leiszter K Detection of methylated septin 9 in tissue and plasma of colorectal patients with neoplasia and the relationship to the amount of circulating cell-free DNA PLoS One 2014 9 115415
104 Shirahata A Hibi K Serum vimentin methylation as a potential marker for colorectal cancer Anticancer Res 2014 34 4121 5 25075038
105 Potter NT Hurban P White MN Whitlock KD Lofton-Day CE Tetzner R Validation of a real-time PCR-based qualitative assay for the detection of methylated SEPT9 DNA in human plasma Clin Chem 2014 60 1183 91 24938752
106 Pedersen SK Mitchell SM Graham LD McEvoy A Thomas ML Baker RT CAHM, a long non-coding RNA gene hypermethylated in colorectal neoplasia Epigenetics 2014 9 1071 82 24799664
107 Church TR Wandell M Lofton-Day C Mongin SJ Burger M Payne SR Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer Gut 2014 63 317 25 23408352
108 Danese E Minicozzi AM Benati M Montagnana M Paviati E Salvagno GL Epigenetic alteration: new insights moving from tissue to plasma - the example of PCDH10 promoter methylation in colorectal cancer Br J Cancer 2013 109 807 13 23839493
109 Petit J Carroll G Williams H Pockney P Scott RJ Evaluation of a multi-gene methylation blood-test for the detection of colorectal cancer Med Sci 2023 11
110 Gallardo-Gómez M Rodríguez-Girondo M Planell N Moran S Bujanda L Etxart A Serum methylation of GALNT9, UPF3A, WARS, and LDB2 as noninvasive biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas Clin Epigenetics 2023 15 157 37794510
111 Alizadeh-Sedigh M Fazeli MS Mahmoodzadeh H Sharif SB Teimoori-Toolabi L Methylation of FBN1, SPG20, ITF2, RUNX3, SNCA, MLH1, and SEPT9 genes in circulating cell-free DNA as biomarkers of colorectal cancer Cancer Biomark 2022 34 221 50 34957998
112 Zhang Y Wu Q Xu L Wang H Liu X Li S Sensitive detection of colorectal cancer in peripheral blood by a novel methylation assay Clin Epigenetics 2021 13 90 33892797
113 Xu F Yu S Han J Zong M Tan Q Zeng X Fan L Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA Methylation in Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2021 12 00386
114 Kottorou AE Antonacopoulou AG Dimitrakopoulos FD Diamantopoulou G Sirinian C Kalofonou M Deregulation of methylation of transcribed-ultra conserved regions in colorectal cancer and their value for detection of adenomas and adenocarcinomas Oncotarget 2018 9 21411 28 29765549
115 Pedersen SK Symonds EL Baker RT Murray DH McEvoy A Van Doorn SC Evaluation of an assay for methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 in plasma for detection of colorectal neoplasia BMC Cancer 2015 15 654 26445409
116 Zhang X Song YF Lu HN Wang DP Zhang XS Huang SL Combined detection of plasma GATA5 and SFRP2 methylation is a valid noninvasive biomarker for colorectal cancer and adenomas World J Gastroenterol 2015 21 2629 37 25759530
117 Liu Y Tham CK Ong SY Ho KS Lim JF Chew MH Serum methylation levels of TAC1 SEPT9 and EYA4 as diagnostic markers for early colorectal cancers: a pilot study Biomarkers 2013 18 399 405 23862763
