ReviewClinical epigenetics2025
A review of the use of tumour DNA methylation for breast cancer subtyping and prediction of outcomes.
Review in Clinical epigenetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing genomics for early cancer detection, risk stratification and prevention.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Emerging Approaches in Breast Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Oncology research · 2026Review
- Emerging Breast Cancer Subpopulations: Functional Heterogeneity Beyond the Classical Subtypes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsy in breast cancer: Redefining precision medicine.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA methylation in breast tumours has been extensively studied and has provided valuable insights into the clinical heterogeneity of breast cancer. In this review, we summarise the current literature that has used DNA methylation markers to subtype breast cancer and predict progression and survival. Widespread methylation differences have been observed across breast cancer subtypes at both the candidate genes and in genome-wide analyses, most notably between oestrogen receptor (ER) positive and ER-negative subtypes and for triple-negative tumours. Studies that attempted to create breast cancer subtypes using methylation data showed limited agreement in their capacity to group breast tumours, possibly due to methodological differences. Although many studies have reported associations of tumour DNA methylation with breast cancer outcomes and used machine learning methods to derive prediction models for survival, the extent to which these would replicate in independent datasets is currently unclear. We conclude that despite the potential of genome-wide methylation markers to unravel the heterogeneity of breast cancer, they currently appear to have limited clinical utility. Larger studies and replication of findings across studies are required to address the limitations of the existing literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.