Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

MDPI, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10(24), p. 8520, 2023

DOI: 10.3390/ijms24108520

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

A Case–Control Study by ddPCR of ALU 260/111 and LINE-1 266/97 Copy Number Ratio in Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Plasma Revealed LINE-1 266/97 as a Potential Biomarker for Early Breast Cancer Detection

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background: In Western countries, breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women. Early detection has a positive impact on survival, quality of life, and public health costs. Mammography screening programs have increased early detection rates, but new approaches to more personalized surveillance could further improve diagnosis. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood could provide a potential tool for early diagnosis by analyzing cfDNA quantity, circulating tumor DNA mutations, or cfDNA integrity (cfDI). Methods: Plasma was obtained from the blood of 106 breast cancer patients (cases) and 103 healthy women (controls). Digital droplet PCR was used for the determination of ALU 260/111 bp and LINE-1 266/97 bp copy number ratio and cfDI. cfDNA abundance was calculated using copies of the EEF1A2 gene. The accuracy of biomarker discrimination was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for age as a potential confounder. Results: Cases had significantly lower ALU 260/111 or LINE-1 266/97 copy number ratios (median; ALU 260/111 = 0.08, LINE-1 266/97 = 0.20), compared with control (median; ALU 260/111 = 0.10, LINE-1 266/97 = 0.28) (p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed that copy number ratio discriminated cases from controls (area under the curve, AUC = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62–0.76 for ALU and 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73–0.86 for LINE-1). ROC from cfDI confirmed the better diagnostic performance of LINE-1 compared with ALU. Conclusions: Analysis of LINE-1 266/97 copy number ratio or cfDI by ddPCR appears to be a useful noninvasive test that could aid in early BC detection. Further studies in a large cohort are needed to validate the biomarker.