Evidence Hub

Circulating cell-free DNA methylation as biomarker for lung cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies

Diana Inês Machado, Tiago Brito-Rocha, S. Salta, Teresa Monjardino, Rui Henrique, Carmen Jerónimo

Systematic Reviews, 2025

11 citations

Abstract

Lung cancer (LC) is the most incident malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related fatalities. The lack of dissemination of effective screening tools hinders early detection, resulting in late-stage diagnosis, mostly associated with high mortality. Gene-specific methylation alterations detected in plasma or serum circulation cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) have been investigated as a possible screening tool. Thus, the main aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to critically assess published data on the use of ccfDNA methylation-based biomarkers for detection of LC. PubMed, including MEDLINE and Scopus databases, were systematically searched for eligible articles evaluating the diagnostic performance of ccfDNA methylation alterations in that setting. A bivariate random-effect model was employed to calculate pool estimated sensitivity and specificity. Accuracy subgroup analyses, according to histological subtype, stage, and smoker status were carried out. A total of 1961 articles were retrieved, of which 44 met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis generated a pooled sensitivity of 54% (CI 95% 48–60%) and a pooled specificity of 86% (CI 95% 83–87%) for LC detection. The most frequently tested host-genome methylation markers were RASSF1 A, APC, SHOX2, SOX17, and HOXA9. Overall, methylation analysis of ccfDNA detects LC with high specificity but modest sensitivity. Further research is required to improve diagnostic performance, establish methodological standards and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free