Women's perception, attitudes, and intended behavior towards predictive epigenetic risk testing for female cancers in 5 European countries: A cross-sectional online survey

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks. METHODS: 1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks. RESULTS: Most women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns

Non-Surgical Cancer Risk Reduction in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: Disabling the Remote Control

Women-specific cancers are a major health issue, particularly those associated with the BRCA1 germline mutation carrier state, which include triple-negative basal breast carcinomas and high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (referred to as extra-uterine Müllerian carcinomas). Whereas many chronic diseases can currently be prevented (e.g., cardiovascular diseases), no recent tangible progress was made in cancer prevention of BRCA1 mutation carriers apart from surgical resections of at-risk organs. This lack of progress is largely due to (1) poor understanding of the initiating events triggered by known risk factors in the development of these cancers, (2) the fact that current preventive measures rely on evidence obtained from adjuvant breast cancer treatment that fail to protect against poor prognostic cancers, and (3) problems with using cancer incidence in high-risk women as an ethically justifiable endpoint in cancer prevention trials. Here, we propose that cancer predisposition in BRCA1 mutation carriers is driven, at least in part, by cell-nonautonomous mechanisms (i.e., driven by consequences of this carrier state on hormonal and other systemic factors controlled in organs other than those that are cancer-prone) and that biomarkers of epigenomic reprogramming, hypothesized to be a direct consequence of such cell-nonautonomous mechanisms, are attractive as intermediate surrogate endpoints to assess the efficacy of cancer risk-reducing strategies targeting these mechanisms

Distinctive topology of age-associated epigenetic drift in the human interactome

Recently, it has been demonstrated that DNA methylation, a covalent modification of DNA that can regulate gene expression, is modified as a function of age. However, the biological and clinical significance of this age-associated epigenetic drift is unclear. To shed light on the potential biological significance, we here adopt a systems approach and study the genes undergoing age-associated changes in DNA methylation in the context of a protein interaction network, focusing on their topological properties. In contrast to what has been observed for other age-related gene classes, including longevity- and disease-associated genes, as well as genes undergoing age-associated changes in gene expression, we here demonstrate that age-associated epigenetic drift occurs preferentially in genes that occupy peripheral network positions of exceptionally low connectivity. In addition, we show that these genes synergize topologically with disease and longevity genes, forming unexpectedly large network communities. Thus, these results point toward a potentially distinct mechanistic and biological role of DNA methylation in dictating the complex aging and disease phenotypes

Stochastic epigenetic outliers can define field defects in cancer

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that DNA methylation alterations may contribute to carcinogenesis. Recent data also suggest that DNA methylation field defects in normal pre-neoplastic tissue represent infrequent stochastic “outlier” events. This presents a statistical challenge for standard feature selection algorithms, which assume frequent alterations in a disease phenotype. Although differential variability has emerged as a novel feature selection paradigm for the discovery of outliers, a growing concern is that these could result from technical confounders, in principle thus favouring algorithms which are robust to outliers. RESULTS: Here we evaluate five differential variability algorithms in over 700 DNA methylomes, including two of the largest cohorts profiling precursor cancer lesions, and demonstrate that most of the novel proposed algorithms lack the sensitivity to detect epigenetic field defects at genome-wide significance. In contrast, algorithms which recognise heterogeneous outlier DNA methylation patterns are able to identify many sites in pre-neoplastic lesions, which display progression in invasive cancer. Thus, we show that many DNA methylation outliers are not technical artefacts, but define epigenetic field defects which are selected for during cancer progression. CONCLUSIONS: Given that cancer studies aiming to find epigenetic field defects are likely to be limited by sample size, adopting the novel feature selection paradigm advocated here will be critical to increase assay sensitivity

Integration of genetic and epigenetic markers for risk stratification: opportunities and challenges

Common genetic susceptibility variants could be used for risk stratification in risk-tailored cancer screening and prevention programmes. Combining genetic variants with environmental risk factors would improve risk stratification. Epigenetic changes are surrogate markers of environmental exposures during individual's lifetime. Integrating epigenetic markers, in lieu of environmental exposure data, with genetic markers would potentially improve risk stratification. Epigenetic changes are reversible and acquired gradually, providing potentials for prevention and early detection strategies. The epigenetic changes are tissue-specific and stage-of-development-specific, raising challenges in choice of sample and timing for evaluation of cancer-associated changes. The Horizon 2020 funded research programme, FORECEE, using empirical data, will investigate the value of integration of epigenomics with genomics for risk prediction and prevention of women-specific cancers

Corruption of the Intra-Gene DNA Methylation Architecture Is a Hallmark of Cancer

Epigenetic processes - including DNA methylation - are increasingly seen as having a fundamental role in chronic diseases like cancer. It is well known that methylation levels at particular genes or loci differ between normal and diseased tissue. Here we investigate whether the intra-gene methylation architecture is corrupted in cancer and whether the variability of levels of methylation of individual CpGs within a defined gene is able to discriminate cancerous from normal tissue, and is associated with heterogeneous tumour phenotype, as defined by gene expression. We analysed 270985 CpGs annotated to 18272 genes, in 3284 cancerous and 681 normal samples, corresponding to 14 different cancer types. In doing so, we found novel differences in intra-gene methylation pattern across phenotypes, particularly in those genes which are crucial for stem cell biology; our measures of intra-gene methylation architecture are a better determinant of phenotype than measures based on mean methylation level alone (K-S test [Formula: see text] in all 14 diseases tested). These per-gene methylation measures also represent a considerable reduction in complexity, compared to conventional per-CpG beta-values. Our findings strongly support the view that intra-gene methylation architecture has great clinical potential for the development of DNA-based cancer biomarkers

Prevention in the age of personal responsibility: epigenetic risk-predictive screening for female cancers as a case study

Epigenetic markers could potentially be used for risk assessment in risk-stratified population-based cancer screening programmes. Whereas current screening programmes generally aim to detect existing cancer, epigenetic markers could be used to provide risk estimates for not-yet-existing cancers. Epigenetic risk-predictive tests may thus allow for new opportunities for risk assessment for developing cancer in the future. Since epigenetic changes are presumed to be modifiable, preventive measures, such as lifestyle modification, could be used to reduce the risk of cancer. Moreover, epigenetic markers might be used to monitor the response to risk-reducing interventions. In this article, we address ethical concerns related to personal responsibility raised by epigenetic risk-predictive tests in cancer population screening. Will individuals increasingly be held responsible for their health, that is, will they be held accountable for bad health outcomes? Will they be blamed or subject to moral sanctions? We will illustrate these ethical concerns by means of a Europe-wide research programme that develops an epigenetic risk-predictive test for female cancers. Subsequently, we investigate when we can hold someone responsible for her actions. We argue that the standard conception of personal responsibility does not provide an appropriate framework to address these concerns. A different, prospective account of responsibility meets part of our concerns, that is, concerns about inequality of opportunities, but does not meet all our concerns about personal responsibility. We argue that even if someone is responsible on grounds of a negative and/or prospective account of responsibility, there may be moral and practical reasons to abstain from moral sanctions