Back

DNA Methylation-Based Classification of CNS Tumors: Comparable Performance Between Nanopore and EPIC Technologies

Alanany, R.; Sherif, S.; Sanchez, A.; Salhab, A.; Saadah, H.; Ahmed, E.; Ozer, E.; Maaz, A.; Wongsurawat, T.; Yousri, N.; Raynaud, C.; Hendrickx, W.

2025-11-05 oncology
10.1101/2025.11.02.25339324 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDNA methylation profiling enables precise classification of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) offers same-day, single-sample methylation readouts, but its concordance with Illumina EPIC arrays in routine diagnostic tasks remains incompletely defined. MethodsWe profiled 23 pediatric tumors (18 CNS, 5 non-CNS) by EPIC (v1/v2; FFPE w/o FF) and ONT (FF). CNS tumors from both platforms were classified with the crossNN_brain model; ONT data were additionally classified with Rapid-CNS2 and Sturgeon. Non-CNS tumors were classified with the crossNN pan-cancer model. We compared (i) classifier agreement with integrated histology (w/o NGS) at family/class levels, (ii) pass-rate above platform-specific score cutoffs, (iii) cross-platform concordance of copy-number variation (CNV), and MGMT promoter methylation status. ResultsIn CNS cases, ONT and EPIC methylation profiles demonstrated strong correlation, except for a single low-cellularity outlier (P2), which was excluded from further analysis. Comparative assessment of the two platforms showed that: (a) Molecular classification of CNS tumors using the crossNN classifier was consistent with histology (w/o NGS) at the family level in all cases (100%, 17/17). At the class level, classification agreement was 100% (17/17) for EPIC arrays and 88% (15/17) for ONT data. (b) Copy-number profiles showed high concordance between platforms. (c) MGMT promoter methylation status matched in 94% of cases (16/17). When comparing ONT-specific analysis pipelines using the ONT data, the Rapid-CNS2 pipeline yielded the most reliable class level assignments with 94% (16/17) concordance with the histopathological diagnosis, which marginally exceeded the crossNN classifier, while a third tool (sturgeon) underperformed. In non-CNS tumors, the pan-cancer model produced low-confidence outputs with poor agreement with histology (w/o NGS) (only 1/5 concordant), indicating limited readiness for these entities. ConclusionsONT enables same-day, clinically reliable family-level CNS tumor classification with high concordance to arrays, while EPIC retains a modest class-level edge. High concordance for MGMT and CNV further supports an ONT-first workflow in most CNS cases. Limitations of our study include mostly the cohort size. A key limitation of ONT is its reliance on fresh-frozen DNA and on classifiers originally built around array-derived CpG sites, rather than on models developed natively from ONT data. Building ONT-specific models could further improve class-level accuracy and confidence.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.