An official website of the United States government
Multiple case-controlled studies have shown that analyzing fragmentation patterns in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can distinguish individuals with cancer from healthy controls. However, there have been few studies that investigate various types of cfDNA fragmentomics patterns in individuals with other diseases. We therefore developed a comprehensive statistic, called fragmentation signatures, that integrates the distributions of fragment positioning, fragment length, and fragment end-motifs in cfDNA. We found that individuals with venous thromboembolism, systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis, or scleroderma have cfDNA fragmentation signatures that closely resemble those found in individuals with advanced cancers. Furthermore, these signatures were highly correlated with increases in inflammatory markers in the blood. We demonstrate that these similarities in fragmentation signatures lead to high rates of false positives in individuals with autoimmune or vascular disease when evaluated using conventional binary classification approaches for multicancer earlier detection (MCED). To address this issue, we introduced a multiclass approach for MCED that integrates fragmentation signatures with protein biomarkers and achieves improved specificity in individuals with autoimmune or vascular disease while maintaining high sensitivity. Though these data put substantial limitations on the specificity of fragmentomics-based tests for cancer diagnostics, they also offer ways to improve the interpretability of such tests. Moreover, we expect these results will lead to a better understanding of the process—most likely inflammatory—from which abnormal fragmentation signatures are derived.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on August 20, 2026
Fragmentation signatures in cancer patients resemble those of patients with vascular or autoimmune diseases
More Like this
-
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has infected millions of people around the world, spreading rapidly and causing a flood of patients that risk overwhelming clinical facilities. Whether in urban or rural areas, hospitals have limited resources and personnel to treat critical infections in intensive care units, which must be allocated effectively. To assist clinical staff in deciding which patients are in the greatest need of critical care, we develop a predictive model based on a publicly-available data set that is rich in clinical markers. We perform statistical analysis to determine which clinical markers strongly correlate with hospital admission, semi-intensive care, and intensive care for COVID-19 patients. We create a predictive model that will assist clinical personnel in determining COVID-19 patient prognosis. Additionally, we take a step towards a global framework for COVID-19 prognosis prediction by incorporating statistical data for geographically and ethnically diverse COVID--19 patient sets into our own model. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first model which does not exclusively utilize local data.more » « less
-
Risk information is increasingly available to health care providers and patients thanks to a growing body of health outcomes research and clinical prediction models. Meanwhile, communicating such information is encouraged for a variety of reasons. Yet clinicians often struggle to communicate risk information—or forego the task altogether due to various challenges. The challenges are real, and this paper briefly discusses six of them: (1) Clinician reliance on verbal risk descriptions, (2) Low patient numeracy; (3) Lack of meaningful numeric evidence; (4) Patient use of heuristics; (5) Uncertain risk information; and (6) The curse of knowledge. Specific strategies exist for clinicians, though, to overcome these complex challenges. In the paper, we present evidence-based best practices with examples of what clinicians can do to effectively communicate risk information to their patients (and what they should not do). The best practices include communicating with numbers, not only words; decreasing cognitive effort for patients; providing the meaning of numeric risk data important to decisions; acknowledging uncertainty; and testing communication with patients through teach-back techniques. We conclude by recommending that clinicians integrate these strategies into their existing scripts for patient encounters.more » « less
