Back

cfDNA concentration as an independent determinant of multi-cancer early detection sensitivity: evidence from a large Indian case-control cohort

Basu, S.; Hiremath, P.; Rathod, N.; Chatterjee, A.; Vishwanath, D.; Ghosh, A.; Sthanusubramonian, T.; Kumar, S.; S, K.; RT, P.; Nair, A.; RA, S.; Sekar, K.; Yete, S.; G, B.; Bahadur, U.; Radhakrishnan, A.; Sarkar, A.; Uzzaman, S.; Beig, A.; Khan, A.; Padhukasahasram, B.; Nemani, L.; Sivaswamy, Y. K.; Bollipalli, L.; Ghana, P.; Phalke, S.; Cantor, C.; Limaye, S.; Chandru, V.; Veeramachaneni, V.; Hariharan, R.

2026-07-06 oncology
10.64898/2026.07.03.26355665 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background The relationship between total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) concentration and multi-cancer early detection (MCED) sensitivity is non-obvious on account of competing considerations. On the one hand, this concentration is elevated in cancer and increases in advanced disease, suggesting higher concentrations may be associated with more biologically active tumors that are easier to detect. On the other hand, this elevation is known to be largely leukocyte-derived, which may dilute tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) and make detection harder. The net direction of these competing effects on detection sensitivity has not been systematically examined. Methods EMERGE is an observational case-control study conducted at 43 Indian sites from June 2022-February 2025. It prospectively enrolled and analyzed 1,030 treatment-naive participants with malignant or benign conditions, most presenting symptomatically, along with 450 controls aged [≥]50 years without prior malignancy. Plasma cfDNA underwent targeted hybrid-capture enzymatic methylation sequencing. Classifiers were trained for cancer detection and tissue-of-origin prediction, and tested on the independent validation set. Primary outcomes were the associations between total cfDNA concentration and (i) detection sensitivity and (ii) tissue-of-origin accuracy, evaluated in an independent validation cohort. Results After adjustment for cancer type, stage, demographic and technical covariates, cfDNA concentration was significantly associated with detection sensitivity (p=6x10-4) but not with tissue-of-origin accuracy (p=0.67). At 0.986 specificity (95% CI: 0.968-1.000), stage I sensitivity rose monotonically from 0.52 (95% CI: 0.34-0.69) in the lowest cfDNA concentration tertile to 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.97) in the highest. This association was mechanistically supported by a region-specific increase in hypermethylation scores within regions identified as differentially hypermethylated in TCGA tumor tissue, while panel-wide scores declined. The dissociation between the concentration-sensitivity and concentration-tissue-of-origin associations, together with inverse or insignificant correlations between ctDNA fraction and cfDNA concentration at early stages in published datasets, suggests that the concentration-sensitivity association is partly independent of ctDNA fraction. Conclusions Total cfDNA concentration is a routinely measured determinant of MCED assay sensitivity, reflecting enrichment of tumor-associated aberrant methylation partly independent of ctDNA fraction, an association likely most pronounced in symptomatic cohorts. Standardized reporting of cfDNA concentration could improve cross-study benchmarking. Study Registration Clinical Trials Registry, India: CTRI2022/05/042936 Keywords Cell-free DNA (cfDNA), Tumor Fraction, Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA), Circulating Mutant Allele Frequency (cMAF), Multi-cancer early detection (MCED), cfDNA Concentration, Tissue-of-Origin (TOO), Methylation, Epigenomics

Matching journals

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

1
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
2
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
3
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
4
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.9%
5
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
6
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.5%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
9
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
10
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
11
Clinical Epigenetics
60 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
12
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.2%
13
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
14
Molecular Oncology
55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
15
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.4%
17
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
21
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.9%
24
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
25
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
26
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
27
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Human Mutation
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
29
Gastroenterology
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%