Could a novel category of molecular testing be emerging?

Thyroid nodules have been increasingly common in our daily lives and the combination of thyroid ultrasonography and fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) remains the gold standard for identifying or ruling out malignancy with high accuracy (1). However, one out of five aspirates result in the so named “indeterminate samples” or, according to the Bethesda’s Classification System, categories III [atypia of undetermined significance (AUS)/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS)] and IV [follicular neoplasm (FN)/suspicious for follicular neoplasm (SFN)] (2). The rate of malignancy in these indeterminate aspirates varies from 10% to 30% (2). The standard management for these two categories used to be a diagnostic lobectomy around 10 years ago (3). Many groups started to look for less aggressive tools that would reduce the number of indeterminate cytology to minimize the number of resulting unnecessary surgeries, and thus differentiate benign from malignant samples before a surgical procedure was necessary (4).

Nowadays, by mentioning indeterminate nodules, the molecular tests are the ones that stand out. In addition, advances in the understanding of the molecular biology of thyroid tumors, along with advances in genomic technologies have been facilitating its implementation in clinical practice. Due to the fact that such molecular tests have evolved so much and so quickly, currently their applicability serves not only for diagnosis, but also for prognosis and for therapeutic indication purposes (5).

The first molecular markers to gain prominence were point mutations such as BRAFV600E and RAS, and gene fusions like RET/PTC and PAX8/PPARg, in addition to TERT mutations (6). It is known that in most thyroid cancers, mutations are mutually exclusive events, that is, only one of these mutations is found in each tumor (7). When these mutations are used as independent biomarkers, their sensitivity and specificity are too low to be clinically relevant, except for the presence of BRAF and TERT mutations as they are correlated with tumor malignancy (6,8). However, the combination of the analysis of these mutations in a panel has been shown to improve the sensitivity and specificity rates (6,8). Therefore, based on these data, the 7 genes panel was created, and it has inspired groups to create other types of panels that have begun to be commercialized.

Currently, there are 5 commercially available tests being used routinely in clinical practice, particularly in the United States. Most of them, detecting driver mutation or gene fusions (ThyroSeqV3, ThyGeNEXT), or a panel of differential expressed genes (Afirma and Thyroprint) or microRNAs (mirThype, ThyraMIR). Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), next generation sequencing (NGS) or RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) technologies have been used in these tests to differentiate benign from malignant nodules in indeterminate samples. The prior indication of the molecular tests is for its diagnostic purpose, reaching a sensitivity of 89–94% and specificity of 68–85%, Negative predictive value (NPV) of 94–96% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 47–78% (4) (Table 1). It is important to say that these statistical numbers are influenced by the pretest risk of malignancy (15). Consequently, it is necessary to consider clinical, radiological and cytological information that precedes the molecular test for the indication and correct interpretation of the molecular test results (5). However, the lack of multicenter, prospective, and independent validations of the latest versions of the tests, population-specific validations and, in particular, their high cost, seem to be the biggest barriers towards their total daily applicability routine in many countries (4).

Little has been seen or discussed in the latest International Congresses about an improvement in the diagnostic point of view of these molecular tests. It seems that we have been satisfied with the diagnostic accuracy of the known driver mutations or gene rearrangements, of the few differentiated expressed genes or panel of miRNAs, by reaching sensitivities of 89–95% and specificities of 68–85%. Therefore, what we have been seeing lately is an effort to understand the prognostic role of the known molecular markers, and how they can help us to guide a targeted therapy, rather than trying to improve their diagnostic accuracy (5).

Nevertheless, the article published by Xu et al. (14) with the title: “The high diagnostic accuracy of epigenetic imprinting biomarkers in thyroid nodules”, published on the Journal of Clinical Oncology on November 15, 2022 took us out of our comfort zone regarding what we had known about molecular panels for indeterminate thyroid nodules at what we had considered “sufficient” as diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV. The group surprised us with their data about a panel of epigenetic imprinting biomarkers in indeterminate thyroid nodules reaching a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 91.5% (95% CI: 86.4–96.5%), a PPV of 96.5% (95% CI: 94.4–98.6%), and a NPV of 100% in the prospective validation, with a diagnostic accuracy of 97.5% (384/394; 95% CI: 95.9–99.0%). That means: a complete novel category of molecular marker and different technology that had never been used before when compared to the current validated molecular tests. In addition, reaching numbers that had not been reached by any commercially available molecular test before (Table 1).

It is defined that epigenetics are changes in gene expression which can be inherited, and that are not related to variation in the DNA sequence (16). Historically, the word “epigenetics”, a term introduced by Conrad Waddington in 1942, had been used to describe events that could not be explained by genetics (DNA), and defined epigenetics as “the branch of biology that studies the causal interactions between genes and their products, which give rise to the phenotype” (16). Over the years, numerous biological phenomena, some considered unusual and unexplored, have been grouped under the category of epigenetics. Currently, epigenetics is defined as the biological processes that promote gene expression variation, and which cannot be changed in the nucleotide sequence of the gene (17).

Translating the genetic information of “epigenetic imprinting biomarkers’’ detected by QCIGISH technology into practical words: In normal somatic cells, maternal and paternal alleles of an imprinted gene are differentially methylated, thus one of allele is silenced and the other, activated. However, in the case of cancers, both alleles are expressed due to the activation of the imprinted gene. This is called “loss of imprinting” (18). So, the method discussed in the paper by Xu et al. (14) analyses the non-coding intronic RNA aiming to visualize the transcription loci of the imprinted gene. For that, the QCIGISH method uses different colours to characterize the different structures of the nuclei: blue, red and brown. The different allelic expressions of the imprinted genes are quantified based on the transcription signals. Normal cells will show 1 or no colour, however, aberrant expressions will show more than one color signal (19). Putting together, the principle of the QCIGISH methodology is to visualize, quantify and confirm pathologic allele expression of the investigated imprinted genes (14).

Using this method, Xu et al. (14) demonstrated the diagnostic value of the expression status of three imprinted genes candidate to differentiate benign from malignant indeterminate thyroid samples: guanine nucleotide-binding protein, alpha-stimulating complex locus (GNAS), growth factor receptor-bound protein (GRB10), and small nuclear ribonucleoprotein polypeptide N (SNRPN). The prospective multicenter study, involving 394 patients, showed an overall diagnostic accuracy for combined cases of Bethesda III, IV and V of 98.2%.

Quite impressive numbers, especially when compared with other methodologies like the well-known and established PCR, NGS, RNA-Seq or type of genetic material studied (DNA, RNA, miRNA). However, in front of a novelty, other questions start to emerge: (I) Is QCIGISH technique accessible and also established as PCR or NGS? (II) Is it an easy reproducible method, easily applicable to other countries? (III) Is it cost-effective? (IV) Do we need high-qualified specialists to carry out the analyses? (V) How about the pre-analytical phase: how complex is the preparation of the material for this technology? (VI) Is it easy to add this test to a clinical routine?

Perhaps a novel category may be arriving, or at least, new horizons are opening up in this era of precision medicine, and what was thought to be well established may change in the next few years. And while we thought that an “all stages” test: diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic was enough, the epigenetic may be presenting us another tool, perhaps much more powerful than the previous ones, mainly to the diagnosis of indeterminate samples. We will anxiously await the answers to the above questions and further studies to help us define the applicability of this new molecular marker.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Chinese Clinical Oncology. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://cco.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/cco-23-49/prf

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://cco.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/cco-23-49/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 2016;26:1-133. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Thyroid 2009;19:1159-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Camargo R, Corigliano S, Friguglietti C, et al. Latin American thyroid society recommendations for the management of thyroid nodules. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol 2009;53:1167-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Ferraz C. Can current molecular tests help in the diagnosis of indeterminate thyroid nodule FNAB? Arch Endocrinol Metab 2018;62:576-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Valderrabano P, Eszlinger M, Stewardson P, et al. Clinical value of molecular markers as diagnostic and prognostic tools to guide treatment of thyroid cancer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2023;98:753-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Ferrari SM, Fallahi P, Ruffilli I, et al. Molecular testing in the diagnosis of differentiated thyroid carcinomas. Gland Surg 2018;7:S19-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Kimura ET, Nikiforova MN, Zhu Z, et al. High prevalence of BRAF mutations in thyroid cancer: genetic evidence for constitutive activation of the RET/PTC-RAS-BRAF signaling pathway in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cancer Res 2003;63:1454-7. [PubMed]
8. Ferraz C, Eszlinger M, Paschke R. Current state and future perspective of molecular diagnosis of fine-needle aspiration biopsy of thyroid nodules. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:2016-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Nikiforova MN, Mercurio S, Wald AI, et al. Analytical performance of the ThyroSeq v3 genomic classifier for cancer diagnosis in thyroid nodules. Cancer 2018;124:1682-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Labourier E, Shifrin A, Busseniers AE, et al. Molecular Testing for miRNA, mRNA, and DNA on Fine-Needle Aspiration Improves the Preoperative Diagnosis of Thyroid Nodules With Indeterminate Cytology. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100:2743-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Patel KN, Angell TE, Babiarz J, et al. Performance of a Genomic Sequencing Classifier for the Preoperative Diagnosis of Cytologically Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules. JAMA Surg 2018;153:817-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Santos MTD, Buzolin AL, Gama RR, et al. Molecular Classification of Thyroid Nodules with Indeterminate Cytology: Development and Validation of a Highly Sensitive and Specific New miRNA-Based Classifier Test Using Fine-Needle Aspiration Smear Slides. Thyroid 2018;28:1618-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. González HE, Martínez JR, Vargas-Salas S, et al. A 10-Gene Classifier for Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: Development and Multicenter Accuracy Study. Thyroid 2017;27:1058-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Xu H, Zhang Y, Wu H, et al. High Diagnostic Accuracy of Epigenetic Imprinting Biomarkers in Thyroid Nodules. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:1296-306. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Valderrabano P, McIver B. Evaluation and Management of Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: The Revolution of Risk Stratification Beyond Cytological Diagnosis. Cancer Control 2017;24:1073274817729231. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Peixoto P, Cartron PF, Serandour AA, et al. From 1957 to Nowadays: A Brief History of Epigenetics. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:7571. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Deans C, Maggert KA. What do you mean, "epigenetic"? Genetics 2015;199:887-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Jelinic P, Shaw P. Loss of imprinting and cancer. J Pathol 2007;211:261-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Zhou J, Cheng T, Li X, et al. Epigenetic imprinting alterations as effective diagnostic biomarkers for early-stage lung cancer and small pulmonary nodules. Clin Epigenetics 2021;13:220. [Crossref] [PubMed]