ArticleClinical epigenetics2025
Monitoring breast cancer progression through circulating methylated GCM2 and TMEM240 detection.
Article in Clinical epigenetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. Approximately 20-30% of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer eventually develop metastatic disease. Current biomarkers, such as CA15-3 and CEA, detect metastasis in only 60-80% of cases, underscoring the need for improved diagnostic tools. This study investigates the potential of circulating methylated GCM2 and TMEM240 as biomarkers for noninvasive monitoring of breast cancer progression.
methodsIn a prospective study conducted in Taiwan, 396 patients were enrolled, alongside a retrospective study of 134 plasma samples from Western populations. cfDNA was extracted, subjected to sodium bisulfite conversion, and the methylation levels of GCM2 and TMEM240 were measured using QMSP. Monte Carlo analysis assigned 70% of the dataset to a training set and 30% to a validation set, repeated 1000 times. Performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were averaged to ensure robustness, supporting the use of combined GCM2 and TMEM240 for monitoring treatment response and tumor burden.
resultsThe training set, consisting of 166 breast cancer patients (13.3% with recurrence or metastasis), was utilized to establish the biomarker detection cutoff. Validation in a separate cohort of 325 patients (20% with recurrence or metastasis) demonstrated superior performance compared to CA15-3 and CEA, achieving 95.1% accuracy, 89.4% sensitivity, 96.5% specificity, 86.8% positive predictive value (PPV), and 97.3% negative predictive value (NPV). Monte Carlo analysis of the training data revealed an average sensitivity of 95.7%, specificity of 90.3%, and accuracy of 91.5%, while validation data achieved 92.8% sensitivity, 89.5% specificity, and 90.3% accuracy across 1000 replicates. Positive cases were significantly associated with late-stage disease (P < 0.001), larger tumors (P = 0.002), distant metastasis (P < 0.001), and disease progression (P < 0.001). For monitoring treatment response and tumor burden, decreased methylation levels were observed in patients responding well to treatment, whereas increased levels were noted in cases of cancer progression or prior to metastasis.
conclusionsOverall, detecting methylated GCM2 and TMEM240 in plasma offers a novel, accurate, and noninvasive method for monitoring breast cancer progression.
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.