Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary characteristics of blood-derived methylation studies and breast cancer risk (n = 17)

From: Epigenome-wide DNA methylation and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review

Design

Study design

 Case-cohort or cohort studies, n = 2

 Nested case-control studies, n = 9

 Unspecified case-control studies, n = 3

 Cross-sectional study, n = 1

 Multiple designs, n = 2

Sample size

 Total participants, 90 to 228,951

 Breast cancer patients, 48 to 122,977

Population source

 Europe, n = 8

 Australia, n = 3

 USA, n = 2

 Europe and/or Australia and/or USA, n = 4

Follow-up

 Duration, 2 weeks to > 20 years

 Not reported in 9 studies

Breast cancer patients

Mean age, 48 to 64 years old

Postmenopausal, 31 to 100%, NR in 10 studies

Invasive cancers, 88 to 100%, NR in 10 studies

ER-positive cancers, 0 to 83%, NR in 9 studies

DNA methylation measurement

Timing

 Before diagnosis, n = 13

 After diagnosis, before treatment, n = 2

 After diagnosis, unspecified, n = 1

 Not reported, n = 1

Cell-type proportions

 Estimated (Houseman algorithm), n = 10

 Estimated, other method, n = 2

 Estimated, method NR, n = 2

 Not considered, n = 3

Probe design bias correction method

 Functional normalizationa, n = 7

 SWANa, n = 7

 BMIQ, n = 2

 Quantile normalization, n = 2

 RCP, n = 1

 Not reported, n = 4

Cross-hybridizing probes

 Excluded, n = 5

 Not reported, n = 12

Probes with SNP

 Excluded, n = 5

 Not excluded, n = 1

 Not reported, n = 11

X chromosomes

 Excluded, n = 5

 Included, n = 4

 Not reported, n = 8

Outcomes

Breast cancer incidence, n = 16

Breast mammographic density, n = 1

Statistical modeling

Global methylation, n = 9

Type of global methylation analysis

 Average across all included probesc, n = 6

 Average across pre-defined set of probesc, n = 5

Type of methylation value

 Beta-values, n = 8

 Not reported, n = 1

Statistical model

 Logistic regression, n = 5

 Cox proportional hazard model, n = 1

 Non-parametric test, n = 2

 Not reported, n = 1

Adjustment

 Appropriate, n = 3

 Incomplete, n = 4

 None, n = 2

Probe-wise differential methylation, n = 16

Type of methylation value

 Beta-values, n = 10

 M-values, n = 4

 Not reported, n = 2

Statistical model

 Logistic regressionb, n = 6

 Cox proportional hazard modelsb, n = 2

 Beta-regression, n = 2

 Linear mixed effect model, n = 2

 MetaXcan method, n = 1

 Linear regression with empirical Bayes methods, n = 1

 Non-parametric tests, n = 1

 Not reported, n = 2

Adjustment

 Appropriate, n = 3

 Incomplete, n = 12

 None, n = 1

Multiple comparison correction

 Bonferroni’s correction, n = 6

 FDR, n = 3

 None, n = 7

  1. n number of studies, NR not reported, SNP single nucleotide polymorphism, SWAN Subset-quantile within array normalization, BMIQ Beta-mixture quantile normalization, RCP Regression on Correlated Probes, DMP differentially methylated positions, FDR false discovery rate, ER estrogen receptor
  2. an = 6 studies used both functional normalization and SWAN
  3. bone study used both logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models
  4. cn = 2 studies measured both