Table 9.
Prevalence of BLV detection in breast cancer samples according to different studies.
| Study | Positive Cases/Total Cases (%) | Technique Used |
|---|---|---|
| Amato, 2023 [171] | 0/30 (0%) | PCR on CPT |
| Yamanaka, 2022 [172] | 0/23 (0%) | PCR on CPT |
| Adekanmbi, 2021 [173] | 0/238 (0%) | Fluorescence resonance energy transfer-qPCR on blood-derived DNA samples |
| Olaya-Galán, 2021 [174] | 46/75 (61%) | Nested-liquid phase PCR on FFPE sections |
| Delarmelina, 2020 [175] | 47/49 (96%) 46/49 (94%) for the tax gene 28/49 (57%) for the env gene |
Nested-PCR on FFPE |
| Schwingel, 2019 [176] | 22/72 (31%) | PCR on FFPE sections |
| Baltzell, 2018 [36] | 35/61 (57%) | PCR and/or DNA hybridization on FFPE sections |
| Buehring, 2017 [177] | 40/50 (80%) | PCR-ISH on FFPE sections |
| Gillet, 2016 [178] | 0/51 (0%) | Raw DNA sequences from whole genomes of breast tumors and normal breast tissues adjacent to the tumor were retrieved from the NCBI database of genotype and phenotype. |
| Zhang, 2016 [179] | 0/91 (0%) | RT-PCR on unspecified tissue samples |
| Buehring, 2015 [180] | 67/114 (59%) | IS-PCR on FFPE sections |
| Buehring, 2014 [181] | 97/2019 (44%) | IS-PCR on FFPE sections |
CPT, cryopreserved tissue; qPCR, quantitative PCR; FFPE, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded; PCR-ISH, PCR-in situ hybridization; RT-PCR, real-time PCR; IS-PCR, in situ PCR.