Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: Objective: To compare the dermatoglyphic characteristics of women with and without breast cancer.
Received 18 February 2011 Study design: Case–control study. One hundred and thirty women = 130 women with histopathologi-
Received in revised form 3 June 2011 cally confirmed breast cancer (case group) were compared with 127 women in the same age group but
Accepted 1 November 2011
without breast cancer (control group). Fingerprints of the two groups were compared in terms of whorl,
loop and arch patterns.
Keywords: Results: The loop pattern was most common in both groups [68 women (52.3%) in the case group and 58
Breast cancer
women (45.7%) in the control group], followed by the whorl pattern [60 women (46.2%) in the case group
Dermatoglyphic pattern
and 64 women (50.4%) in the control group]; the difference was not significant (p = 0.337). The number
Menopause
Pregnancy of whorl patterns and the breakdown by classification group did not differ significantly between the two
Breast feeding groups. In addition, no significant difference was found in the dermatologlyphic patterns of the women
with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer.
Conclusion: No difference was found in the dermatoglyphic characteristics of women with and without
breast cancer. As such, this does not appear to be an effective screening method for women at risk for
breast cancer.
ß 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
0301-2115/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.11.001
202 E. Sariri et al. / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 160 (2012) 201–204
Special dermatoglyphic patterns have been studied in congeni- Samples were obtained by rolling fingers in ink and then
tal disorders such as Down’s syndrome (Trisomy 21), Klinefelter’s pressing the fingers onto glossy paper. The samples were evaluated
syndrome and Turner’s syndrome [8,9], as well as coronary heart by a well-trained specialist.
disease, type 2 diabetes, schizophrenia, cerebral palsy and Ridge counts and quantitative and qualitative evaluations of
Alzheimer’s disease [10–13]. Research has also been undertaken dermatologlyphic patterns were compared between the two
on the dermatoglyphic characteristics of women with breast groups. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical
cancer. However, no special or unique dermatoglyphic patterns for Package for the Social Sciences Version 13 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
breast cancer have been identified to date, possibly due to the USA). Chi-squared test and t-test were used for comparisons.
interaction between genetic and environmental factors in the
genesis of breast cancer [14–16]. 3. Results
Given the high prevalence of breast cancer, it would be very
helpful if dermatoglyphic evaluation could determine which In total, 257 women were evaluated: 130 women in the case
women are at risk. This would represent a cheap, safe and group and 127 women in the control group. Age, age at menarche,
accessible method of screening. age at first pregnancy, marital status, ever having been pregnant,
The aim of the present study was to compare the dermatoglyphic performing exercise, smoking status and history of breast feeding
characteristics of women with and without breast cancer quantita- did not differ significantly between the groups. However,
tively and qualitatively in order to determine if dermatoglyphic significant differences were found in being menopausal, age at
characteristics can be used as a screening tool for breast cancer. onset of menopause and family history of breast cancer between
the groups (Table 1). Loop and whorl patterns were the most
2. Materials and methods common patterns in both groups; the difference between the
groups was not significant (Table 2).
This case–control study was conducted between March 2007 and The distribution of whorl patterns and the number of whorl
March 2008. The cases (n = 130) were women who had histopatho- patterns on odd and even fingers (Class 1) did not differ significantly
logically confirmed breast cancer, and the controls (n = 127) were between the two groups (Table 3). In addition, no significant
women in the same age group but without breast cancer. difference was found in the distribution of patterns on the index
The inclusion criteria were: histopathologically confirmed fingers of both hands (Class 2). For Class 3 (distribution of patterns on
breast cancer (case group); consent to participate in the study; the index fingers, middle fingers and ring fingers of both hands), no
and no history of any malignancies of the colon, pancreas, ovary, significant difference was found between the two groups: right
endemetrium, cervix, gall bladder or skin in first-degree relatives. index finger (p = 0.817), right middle finger (p = 0.459), right ring
The study was approved by the institutional review board and finger (p = 0.873), left index finger (p = 0.426), left middle finger
the institutional ethics committee. Written informed consent was (p = 0.694) and left ring finger (p = 0.401). Finally, no significant
obtained from all participants. difference was found between the groups in terms of whorl patterns
Table 1
Characteristics of the subjects.
Characteristics Case group n = 130 Control group n = 127 p-Value OR (95% CI)
Table 2 Table 3
Distribution of different dematoglyphic patterns on the fingers of both hands in the Number of whorl patterns in the two groups, mean standard deviation.
two groups.
Case group Control group p-Value
Fingers Pattern Case group Control group p-Value
Even fingers Class 1 15.01 11.86 15.54 11.8 0.717
n = 127 n = 130
Odd fingers Class 1 11.98 10.67 13.15 10.79 0.382
Right thumb Arch 2 (1.5%) 5 (3.9%) 0.337 Class 4 13.22 4.37 13.34 4.96 0.836
Loop 68 (52.3%) 58 (45.7%) Class 5 14.02 5.08 14.34 4.98 0.629
Whorl 60 (46.2%) 64 (50.4%)
Right index Arch 11 (8.5%) 12 (9.4%) 0.772
Loop 60 (46.2%) 53 (41.7%)
Whorl 59 (45.4%) 62 (48.8%) on the thumbs of both hands (Class 6): left hand (p = 0.819) and right
Right middle Arch 94 (73.3%) 90 (70.9%) 0.890 hand (p = 0.664).
Loop 36 (37.7%) 37 (29.1%)
No significant difference was found in the dermatoglyphic
Whorl 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Right ring Arch 13 (10%) 10 (7.9%) 0.559
patterns of women with breast cancer with and without a family
Loop 90 (69.2%) 84 (66.1%) history of breast cancer (Table 4).
Whorl 27 (20.8%) 33 (26%)
Right small Arch 2 (1.5%) 3 (2.4%) 0.886
Loop 107 (82.3%) 103 (81.1%) 4. Comments
Whorl 21 (16.2%) 21 (16.5%)
Left thumb Arch 6 (4.6%) 6 (4.7%) 0.696 The present study found no significant difference in the
Loop 60 (46.2%) 52 (40.9%)
dermatoglyphic patterns of women with and without breast
Whorl 64 (49.2%) 69 (54.3%)
Left index Arch 21 (16.2%) 16 (12.6%) 0.665 cancer in terms of arch, loop and whorl patterns. In addition,
Loop 53 (40.8%) 51 (40.2%) among the women with breast cancer, no significant difference
Whorl 56 (43.1%) 60 (47.2%) was found in the dermatoglyphic patterns between those with and
Left middle Arch 26 (20%) 20 (15.7%) 0.459 without a family history of breast cancer. In contrast to other
Loop 66 (50.8%) 74 (58.3%)
Whorl 38 (29.2%) 33 (26%)
studies, the present study found that dermatoglyphic patterns are
Left ring Arch 3 (2.3%) 5 (3.9%) 0.707 not valuable as a screening test for breast cancer.
Loop 70 (53.8%) 70 (55.1%) Chintamani et al. [14] found a significant difference between
Whorl 57 (43.8%) 52 (40.9%) the fingerprints of women with and without breast cancer, and
Left small Arch 3 (2.3%) 3 (2.4%) 0.743
suggested that dermatoglyphic patterns may be used as a tool to
Loop 104 (80%) 106 (83.5%)
Whorl 23 (17.7%) 18 (14.2%) study the genetic backgrounds of breast cancer. In contrast,
Seltzer et al. [17] found no relationship between palm prints and
Table 4
Dermatoglyphic distribution on fingers of both hands in women with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer.
Fingers Pattern With family history of breast cancer n = 29 Without family history of breast cancer n = 101 p-Value
breast cancer, but found that women with breast cancer were References
significantly more likely to have six or more whorl patterns in
[1] Olopade OI, Grushko TA, Nanda R, Huo D. Advances in breast cancer. Pathway
their fingerprints compared with women without breast cancer. to personalized medicine. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:7988–99.
Seltzer et al. suggested that this might be used to identify women [2] Edlich RF, Cross CL, Wack CA, Chase ME, Lin KY, Long WB. Breast cancer and
who may be at risk in the future. Sridevi et al. [18] performed a ovarian cancer genetics: an update. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol
2008;27:245–56.
study on 100 women with breast cancer in India, and found a [3] Mousavi SM, Montazeri A, Mohagheghi MA, et al. Breast cancer in Iran: an
significant difference in the dermatoglyphic patterns between epidemiological review. Breast J 2007;13:383–91.
women with and without breast cancer in terms of the number of [4] Chia KS. Gene–environment interaction in breast cancer. Novartis Found Symp
2008;293:143–50.
lines and the patterns. This study supported the use of [5] Wertelecki W. Dermatoglyphic investigations: expanding prospects. Birth
dermatoglyphic patterns to identify women at risk of breast Defects Orig Artic Ser 1991;27:65–93.
cancer. Another study by Seltzer [19] reported a significant [6] Alter M. Dermatoglyphic analysis as a diagnostic tool. Medicine (Baltimore)
1967;46:35–56.
difference between women with and without breast cancer in
[7] Babler WJ. Embryonic development of epidermal ridges and their
terms of the presence of six or more whorl patterns, in accordance configurations. In: Plato CC, Garrote RM, Schaumman B, editors. Dermato-
with their previous study [17]. Bierman et al. [20] suggested that glyphics: science in transition. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1991. p. 95–112.
the differences between studies may be explained by the way in [8] Kebyliansky E, Bejerano M, Vainder M, Bat-Miriam Katznelson M. Relationship
between genetic anomalies of different levels and deviations in dermatoglyph-
which environmental differences affect a fetus during the first ic traits. Part 2. Dermatoglyphic peculiarities of females with Turner’s syn-
trimester of pregnancy [5–7]. drome. Anthropol Anz 1997;55:315–48.
Environmental factors may be much more important than [9] Rajangam S, Janakiram S, Thomas IM. Dermatoglyphics in Down’s syndrome. J
Indian Med Assoc 1995;93:10–3.
genetic factors alone. As such, it seems reasonable to perform more [10] Simsek S, Taskiran H, Karakaya N. Dermatoglyphic analysis in children with
studies among individuals with different ethnic and environmen- CP. Neurobiology BP 1998;6:373–80.
tal backgrounds and different races who are affected by different [11] Varma SL, Chary TV, Singh S, Ashoro MZ. Dermatoglyphic patterns in schizo-
phrenic patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1995;91:213–5.
environmental situations in order to elucidate and differentiate the [12] Weinreb HJ. Fingerprint pattern in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology
role of genetic and environmental factors. Various dermatoglyphic 1985;42:50–4.
indexes (numbers, patterns, distribution, etc.) should be evaluated [13] Bolgir RS, Murthy RS, Wig NN. Genetic loading in schizophrenia (dermato-
glyphic study). Isr J Med Sci 1993;29:265–8.
in order to find the best index.
[14] Chintamani, Khandelwal R, Mittal A, et al. Qualitative and quantitative der-
The present study evaluated various indexes, and also studied matoglyphic traits in patients with breast cancer: a prospective clinical study.
the dermatoglyphic patterns of women with breast cancer with BMC Cancer 2007;13:44.
[15] Rudan P, Pisl Z, Basek B, et al. Quantitative dermatoglyphic traits in patients
and without a family history of breast cancer; no significant
with breast cancer: preliminary report. Acta Med Iugosl 1980;34:73–9.
difference was found. [16] De Andre’s Basauri L, Baneo L, Carulla J. Genetic factors in breast cancer.
It may be useful to perform a cohort study on women who are at Identification of a high risk group by means of dermatoglyphic investigation.
high risk for breast cancer, according to their family history, in Oncology 1975;32:27–33.
[17] Seltzer MH, Plato CC, Fox KM. Dermatoglyphics in the identification of women
order to find a relationship between dermatoglyphic patterns and either with or at risk for breast cancer. Am J Med Genet 1990;37:482–8.
breast cancer in order to identify which groups of women may [18] Sridevi NS, Delphine Silvia CR, Kulkarni R, Seshagiri C. Palmar dermatoglyphics in
benefit from dermatoglyphic evaluation. carcinoma breast of Indian women. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2010;51:547–50.
[19] Seltzer MH, Plato CC, Engler PE, Fletcher HS. Digital dermatoglyphics and
Dermatoglyphic patterns can be used as a screening test for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1982;2:261–5.
breast cancer in some women, but not all. Dermatoglyphic patterns [20] Bierman HR, Faith MR, Stewart ME. Digital dermatoglyphics in mammary
have been suggested as a tool to determine the genetic back- cancer. Cancer Invest 1988;6:15–27.
[21] Polovina-Proloscic T, Milicic J, Cvjeticanin M, Polovina A, Polovina S. Compari-
grounds of specific diseases such as schizophrenia [11,13], Down’s son of digito-palmar dermatoglyphic traits in children with cerebral palsy and
syndrome [9], cerebral palsy [10,21], glaucoma [22] and larynx their close family members. Coll Antropol 2009;33:925–31.
cancer [23]; this can also be used for breast cancer, but by clearing [22] Novak-Laus K, Milicic J, Tedeschi-Reiner E, Ivekovic R, Mijic V, Masnee-
Paskvalins S. Analysis of the quantitative dermatoglyphic traits of the
the whole concept. digito-palmar complex in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Coll
In conclusion, it is too early to suggest the use of dermato- Antropol 2005;29:637–42.
glyphic characteristics as a screening test for breast cancer. Many [23] Rudic M, Milicic J, Letinic D. Dermatoglyphics and larynx cancer. Coll Antropol
2005;29:179–83.
questions still need to be answered.