Table 7.
Prevalence of CMV detection in breast cancer samples according to different studies.
| Study | Positive Cases/Total Cases (%) | Technique Used |
|---|---|---|
| Touma, 2023 [162] | 9/109 (8%) for IE protein, 82/108 (76%) for LA protein |
IHC on FFPE TMA |
| Calderon, 2022 [24] | 169/233 (73%) | IHC on FFPE sections |
| Ghaffari, 2021 [132] | 5/72 (7%) | Nested-PCR on FFPE sections |
| Golrokh Mofrad, 2021 [30] | 0/59 (0%) | Nested-PCR on FFPE sections |
| Nakhaie, 2021 [163] | 8/49 (16%) | PCR on CPT |
| Touma, 2021 [164] | 83/111 (75%) for LA protein, 9/111 (8%) for IE protein |
IHC on FFPE sections |
| Costa, 2019 [165] | 49/49 (100%) for IE protein, 11/49 (22%) for LA protein |
PCR on FFPE sections |
| Sepahvand, 2019 [166] | 20/37 (54%) | PCR on FFPE sections |
| El Shazly, 2018 [167] | 11/61 (18%) for CMV DNA 21/61 (34%) for IE protein |
PCR on FFPE sections |
| Richardson, 2015 [142] | 0/70 (0%) | qPCR on CPT |
| Bakhtiyrizadeh, 2017 [42] | 0/150 (0%) | RT-PCR on FFPE sections |
| El-Shinawi, 2013 [168] | 62% | Nested-PCR on FFPE sections |
IHC, immunohistochemistry; FFPE, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded; TMA, tissue microarray; CPT, cryopreserved tissue; qPCR, quantitative PCR; RT-PCR, real-time PCR.