» Articles » PMID: 30794318

Methylation-Based Biological Age and Breast Cancer Risk

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2019 Feb 23
PMID 30794318
Citations 89
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Age is one of the strongest predictors of cancer, chronic disease, and mortality, but biological responses to aging differ among people. Epigenetic DNA modifications have been used to estimate "biological age," which may be a useful predictor of disease risk. We tested this hypothesis for breast cancer.

Methods: Using a case-cohort approach, we measured baseline blood DNA methylation of 2764 women enrolled in the Sister Study, 1566 of whom subsequently developed breast cancer after an average of 6 years. Using three previously established methylation-based "clocks" (Hannum, Horvath, and Levine), we defined biological age acceleration for each woman by comparing her estimated biological age with her chronological age. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for breast cancer risk were estimated using Cox regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Each of the three clocks showed that biological age acceleration was statistically significantly associated with increased risk of developing breast cancer (5-year age acceleration, Hannum's clock: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.21, P = .04; Horvath's clock: HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.17, P = .04; Levine's clock: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.23, P < .001). For Levine's clock, each 5-year acceleration in biological age corresponded with a 15% increase in breast cancer risk. Although biological age may accelerate with menopausal transition, age acceleration in premenopausal women independently predicted breast cancer. Case-only analysis suggested that, among women who develop breast cancer, increased age acceleration is associated with invasive cancer (odds ratio for invasive = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.22, P = .10).

Conclusions: DNA methylation-based measures of biological age may be important predictors of breast cancer risk.

Citing Articles

Association of phenotypic age acceleration with all-cause and cause-specific mortality among U.S. cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study.

Liu X, Wang Y, Huang Y, Lin C, Xu B, Zeng Y BMC Cancer. 2025; 25(1):338.

PMID: 40001013 PMC: 11853897. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-13760-6.


Blood-based epigenome-wide association study and prediction of alcohol consumption.

Bernabeu E, Chybowska A, Kresovich J, Suderman M, McCartney D, Hillary R Clin Epigenetics. 2025; 17(1):14.

PMID: 39863868 PMC: 11762500. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-025-01818-y.


DNA-methylation age and accelerated epigenetic aging in blood as a tumor marker for predicting breast cancer susceptibility.

Jung S, Yu H, Deng Y, Pellegrini M Aging (Albany NY). 2024; 16(22):13534-13562.

PMID: 39642870 PMC: 11723651. DOI: 10.18632/aging.206169.


Insights to aging prediction with AI based epigenetic clocks.

Levy J, Diallo A, Saldias Montivero M, Gabbita S, Salas L, Christensen B Epigenomics. 2024; 17(1):49-57.

PMID: 39584810 PMC: 11703013. DOI: 10.1080/17501911.2024.2432854.


Pre-diagnosis blood DNA methylation profiling of twin pairs discordant for breast cancer points to the importance of environmental risk factors.

Bode H, He L, Hjelmborg J, Kaprio J, Ollikainen M Clin Epigenetics. 2024; 16(1):160.

PMID: 39558433 PMC: 11574988. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-024-01767-y.


References
1.
Teschendorff A, Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ramus S, Weisenberger D, Shen H . Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes that are suppressed in stem cells is a hallmark of cancer. Genome Res. 2010; 20(4):440-6. PMC: 2847747. DOI: 10.1101/gr.103606.109. View

2.
Belsky D, Caspi A, Houts R, Cohen H, Corcoran D, Danese A . Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(30):E4104-10. PMC: 4522793. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1506264112. View

3.
Teschendorff A, West J, Beck S . Age-associated epigenetic drift: implications, and a case of epigenetic thrift?. Hum Mol Genet. 2013; 22(R1):R7-R15. PMC: 3782071. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddt375. View

4.
Houseman E, Accomando W, Koestler D, Christensen B, Marsit C, Nelson H . DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012; 13:86. PMC: 3532182. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-86. View

5.
Xu Z, Niu L, Li L, Taylor J . ENmix: a novel background correction method for Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 44(3):e20. PMC: 4756845. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv907. View