[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-370433-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-370433-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","systems-epigenetic-approach-towards-noninvasive-breast-cancer-detection","Systems epigenetic approach towards noninvasive breast cancer detection","","No study has systematically compared DNA methylation (DNAme) profiles in non-invasive samples for breast cancer detection. The work evaluates non-tumour DNAme in 1,100 cervical, buccal, and blood samples from breast cancer cases and controls. Cervical samples show the largest number of differentially methylated sites, buccal follow, and blood yields no significant sites after FDR adjustment. DNAme-based classifiers achieve validation AUCs of 0.75, 0.66, and 0.51, respectively, with buccal and cervical changes distinguishing cases from controls in surrogate and breast tissue.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/systems-epigenetic-approach-towards-noninvasive-breast-cancer-detection/370433/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/systems-epigenetic-approach-towards-noninvasive-breast-cancer-detection/370433.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Valentina","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-23",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Which non-invasive sample types were compared for breast cancer detection?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Cervical, buccal, and blood non-tumour samples were evaluated using DNA methylation (DNAme) profiles.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What were the validation AUC results for DNAme-based breast cancer classifiers?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Validation AUCs were 0.75 for buccal, 0.66 for cervical, and 0.51 for blood (WID-buccal-, cervical-, or blood-BC, respectively).",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Did any DNA methylation sites remain significant in blood after correction?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"No sites were significant in blood after FDR adjustment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},370433,1790613966,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","Article [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53696-2](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53696-2)  \nSystems epigenetic approach towards noninvasive breast cancer detection  \nReceived: 12 February 2024  \n\n| Accepted: 15 October 2024 |\n| --- |\n| |\n| Check for updates |\n\nChiara M. S. Herzog 1,2, Bente Theeuwes1,2, Allison Jones3, Iona Evans 3, Line Bjørge 4,5, Michal Zikan6, David Cibula 7, Nadia Harbeck 8, Nicoletta Colombo9,10, Nora Pashayan11 & Martin Widschwendter 1,2,3,12   \nNo study has systematically compared the suitability of DNA methylation (DNAme) profiles in non-invasive samples for the detection of breast cancer (BC). We assess non-tumour DNAme in 1,100 cervical, buccal, and blood samples from BC cases and controls and find that cervical samples exhibit the largest nuber ofdifferentiallymethylated sites, followed by buccal samples. No sites were significant in blood after FDR adjustment. Deriving DNAme-based classifiers for BC detection in each sample type (WID-buccal-, cervical-, or blood-BC), we achieve validation AUCs of 0.75, 0.66, and 0.51, respectively. Buccal and cervical BC-associated DNAme alterations distinguish between BC cases and controls in both surrogate and breast tissue (AUC > 0.88), yet individual sites and the directionality of methylation changes are not identical between these two sample types, and buccal sample DNAme aligns with breast methylation changes more closely. Pending additional validation, these insights may have the potential to improve non-invasive personalized BC prevention.  \nBreast cancer (BC) is the most common and second most fatal cancer affecting women, emphasizing the demand for effective detection methods1. Current screening or detection approaches predominantly revolve around imaging techniques, primarily mammography. While mammography screening has been proven to reduce breast cancer mortality2, it can lead to overdiagnosis and not insignificant false positive rates. Therefore, the combination of existing screening and early detection approaches with molecular biomarkers has been named a key priority in a recent consensus statement for breast cancer prevention3.  \nIn addition to polygenic risk scores4 that aim to stratify the population based on heritable risk, various other tools are being proposed for screening and early detection. The majority of these utilize blood-based measurements of circulating cell-free tumor nucleic acids (DNA or RNA)or their modification(e.g., DNA methylation5,6), proteins, and carcinoma antigens (CAs)7. The emphasis on blood for cancer biomarkers is likely based on multiple factors, including but not limited to practicality (blood samples are routinely collected and are also often stored in biobanks, facilitating biomarker development) and the fact that tumors shed material into the bloodstream that can be  \n1European Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening Institute, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 2Institute for Biomedical Aging Research, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 3Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK. 4Centre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBIO, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 6Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Hospital Na Bulovce, Prague, Czech Republic. 7Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, General University Hospital in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 8Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and CCC Munich, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany. 9Gynecologic Oncology Program, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 10Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 11Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health an","cbCainxmhXWjY70R","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainxmhXWjY70R","pdf",14919223,14,"English","# Background\n## DNA methylation as a biomarker\n# Study design and samples\n## Cervical, buccal, and blood comparisons\n# Results\n## Differential methylation and classifier performance\n# Validation and implications\n## Potential for non-invasive personalized prevention","[{\"question\":\"Which non-invasive sample types were compared for breast cancer detection?\",\"answer\":\"Cervical, buccal, and blood non-tumour samples were evaluated using DNA methylation (DNAme) profiles.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the validation AUC results for DNAme-based breast cancer classifiers?\",\"answer\":\"Validation AUCs were 0.75 for buccal, 0.66 for cervical, and 0.51 for blood (WID-buccal-, cervical-, or blood-BC, respectively).\"},{\"question\":\"Did any DNA methylation sites remain significant in blood after correction?\",\"answer\":\"No sites were significant in blood after FDR adjustment.\"}]","Systems epigenetic approach towards noninvasive breast cancer detection | PDF",1790188477,35]