Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cancer (GC) remain major causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide, largely because of late-stage diagnosis. Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the established precursor setting for EAC, whereas gastric intestinal metaplasia is an important precursor lesion in the intestinal-type gastric carcinogenesis pathway. Aberrant DNA methylation arises early in both pathways and may offer greater sensitivity and specificity than histology or serology alone, while also illuminating the biology of neoplastic progression. This review evaluates the evidence and translational potential of DNA methylation biomarkers in upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma.
PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for studies published before May 2026 addressing DNA methylation biomarkers in BE, EAC, gastric intestinal metaplasia, and GC. Tissue-based, minimally invasive, and circulating biomarkers were reviewed, with emphasis on diagnostic performance, progression risk, biological significance, and clinical translation.
Methylation alterations accumulate during progression from precancerous lesions to invasive cancer and distinguish disease states in tissue and minimally invasive specimens. Methylation-based assays show promising diagnostic performance in BE and EAC, including nonendoscopic cytology-based approaches and risk-stratification assays, and circulating methylated DNA shows potential for noninvasive detection of EAC and GC. However, heterogeneity in populations, specimens, assay platforms, and study designs, together with limited prospective validation, remains a barrier to implementation.
The field is moving rapidly from discovery toward practice: Cytosponge-TFF3 with biomarker panels has been evaluated in real-world UK surveillance pathways, the EsoCheck/EsoGuard methylation assay is clinically available, and Esopredict is the first epigenetic prognostic assay clinically validated to risk-stratify BE, while multicancer early detection assays undergo prospective evaluation. Multicenter studies of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness remain the decisive step before routine adoption.
Full article