2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2008.04.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical significance of promoter hypermethylation of RASSF1A, RARβ2, BRCA1 and HOXA5 in breast cancers of Indian patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
22
3

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
22
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Among our studied population, the frequency of methylated RARβ2 was found to be 18.8% in cancer tissues, which is lower than that reported for the population of Tehran (36.4%), the capital and a cosmopolitan city of Iran [24]. However, similarity between the frequency of RARβ2 methylation in breast cancer tissue in the present study (18.8%) and some Asian countries such as India (15%) [25] could be attributed to genetic admixture since the Kermanshah province is historically known as the gate of Asia through which passed the important silk road [26]. Also, the type of examined sample (blood or tissue) could be a reason for discrepancy in the reported methylation rates of RARβ2 among various populations.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Among our studied population, the frequency of methylated RARβ2 was found to be 18.8% in cancer tissues, which is lower than that reported for the population of Tehran (36.4%), the capital and a cosmopolitan city of Iran [24]. However, similarity between the frequency of RARβ2 methylation in breast cancer tissue in the present study (18.8%) and some Asian countries such as India (15%) [25] could be attributed to genetic admixture since the Kermanshah province is historically known as the gate of Asia through which passed the important silk road [26]. Also, the type of examined sample (blood or tissue) could be a reason for discrepancy in the reported methylation rates of RARβ2 among various populations.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 65%
“…In many populations, including American [27,28,29,30], Chinese [31], Indian [25], Portuguese [32], and Belgian [33], a significant association between the methylation status of the RARβ2 gene and breast cancer incidence has been observed. Further, a meta-analysis by Fang et al [34] reported that the methylation rate of RARβ2 is significantly increased among breast cancer patients compared to cancer-free controls.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Heterogeneity is observed both with respect to frequency and clinical correlations. The reported frequency of BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation in sporadic breast carcinomas is in the range of 9 to 59% (15,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). The frequency found here is the first reported in Bulgarian patients with BC and is a little below the average BRCA1 hypermethylation frequency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 43%
“…Thus, though not a rule, most studies demonstrated that BRCA1 hypermethylation correlated with lack of estrogen and progesterone receptor expression (19,20,22,24,25,30) and is most frequently present in younger women, below the age of 50 (19,24,29). As this in some way resembles the familial BRCA1 mutated tumors, it has been suggested that BRCA1 hypermethylated tumors might phenocopy familial BRCA1 tumors (31).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When we reviewed the literature, the methylation frequency of RAR 2 varied also widely and was ranged from 10 to 41% (Shukla et al 2006;Li et al 2006;Yang et al 2001). Our data showed that RAR 2 was methylated in 70% (56/80) of cases; this frequency is higher in comparison with other studies on Caucasians, Koreans, or Indians (Lee et al 2007;Bagadi et al 2008). However, the frequencies of promoter methylation for CDH1 and p16 INK4a were within the range reported in previous studies of breast cancer (Nass et al 2000;Herman et al 1996;Lehmann et al 2002;Sharma et al 2007;DuVy 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 47%