ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Potential use of DNA methylation in cervical swabs for early ovarian cancer diagnosis.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic Regulation and Gene Expression Profiles in Cervical Swabs: Toward Non-Invasive Biomarkers of Cervical Lesion Progression.Epigenomes · 2026Article
- Methylated ARHGAP40 DNA as a potential biomarker for early diagnosis in high-grade ovarian serous cancer.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of Methylation Array and Bisulfite Sequencing in Ovarian Tissue Samples and Cervical Swabs.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly diagnosis of ovarian cancer, using cost-effective and non-invasive methods remains an unmet medical need, largely due to unspecific symptoms of the disease.
objectiveOur goal was to identify differentially methylated CpG loci between cervical swabs obtained from patients diagnosed with benign ovarian disease and with malignant pelvic mass. METHODOLOGY: Using Infinium EPICv2 array, we interrogated methylation profiles of 77 cervical swabs. The study cohort was then divided into a training and testing set to develop a diagnostic signature. We applied several strategies to pinpoint CpG sites able to differentiate cervical swabs obtained from ovarian cancer patients and patients with benign ovarian disease. RESULTS AND
conclusionsNone of the statistical methods applied identified CpG loci capable of diagnosing ovarian cancer with sufficient specificity and sensitivity. We conclude that methylation differences observed do not adequately distinguish between benign and malignant ovarian disease. The variations attributable to clinical conditions are likely obscured by the differences in cell composition, which is the primary source of sample heterogeneity. Therefore, we suggest that diagnostic tools should not rely on local methylation profile of the cervix but rather focus on detecting cancer-specific sequences transferred from the tumor site and present in cervical swabs. Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect early, and we aimed to explore whether DNA methylation in cervical swabs could serve as a diagnostic tool. However, our study found that methylation patterns in these samples do not reliably distinguish between benign and malignant conditions, likely due to variations in cell composition. We recommend future research focus on detecting tumor-specific DNA sequences in cervical swabs instead.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.