Breast cancer is one of the most leading causes of cancer death in women. Viruses play an important role in developing breast cancer and other human cancers (
11). The molecular results of 85 studies on the 3 viruses, including EBV, MMTV-LS, and HPV have shown that they play a role in breast cancer (
14). In addition, the role of HCMV in developing or progressing breast cancer has been suggested (
11). It has been reported that HCMV infection has been reported to modulate oncogenes-related signaling pathways (
12).
IgM antibodies are useful to diagnose early infections with HCMV. However, these antibodies are also produced during viral reactivation or re-infection and possible cross-reactions with other viruses (
15). In our samples, CMV-IgM antibodies were detected in the serum of 3 controls and 5 cancer patients. The mean concentration of antibodies was higher in the cancer group than in the control group, but this difference was not significant. However, the mean concentration of CMV-IgM antibody in the cancer group was higher than the control group, which this difference was statistically significant. In line with our results, Richardson also observed higher serum IgG levels in cancer samples than in control samples (
16). Cox et al. also concluded that changes in the serum concentration of the CMV-IgG antibody could be used to diagnose the progression of breast cancer in some women. The increase in IgG antibody concentration may be due to new infection or viral reactivation, which is a risk factor for breast cancer (
17).
Using a real-time PCR technique, of 60 cancerous breast tissues, 20 samples, and from 40 fibroadenoma samples, 5 samples were positive for HCMV genome. El Shazly et al. also identified the viral genome in 11 out of 60 cancer tissue samples and 1 out of 20 fibroblast samples. They also identified viral proteins in the samples. There was also a statistically significant difference in anti-CMV-IgG antibody levels between cancer and control samples (
18). El-Shinawi et al. also found a statistically significant difference in HCMV-DNA in breast cancer tissues compared with non-cancerous tissues. In addition, the HCMV-IgG antibody titer was higher in cancer samples than in control samples (
19). Harkins et al. detected the viral genome in 97% of neoplastic epithelial specimens and 63% of normal individuals through immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization, PCR, and DNA sequencing techniques (
20). Richardson et al. in a meta-analysis showed that 6 out of 7 studies reported breast cancer samples positive for CMV genome (7.4% to 100% of the samples). In addition, almost all studies performed to identify CMV using IHC and ISH techniques showed samples positive for the CMV genome (
21). Mohamed et al. identified HCMV in metastatic breast cancer patients (
1). Taher et al. also detected HCMV in 100% of cancer samples and 98% of sentinel lymph node (SLN) samples (
22). In contrast, several studies found no association between HCMV infection and breast cancer (
10,
23-
25), or the CMV genome was identified only in 3% of healthy breast tissue samples using quantitative PCR (qPCR) (
21).
The role of HCMV in cancer is unclear, but the interaction of viral proteins with cellular processes has been identified. IE proteins are regulatory proteins for the expression of viral and cellular genes that are synthesized during the virus life cycle. Regarding IE1 and IE2 proteins, several functions have been proposed, including cell deformation using the hit and run mechanism. In addition, other HCMV gene products may play a role in carcinogenesis by blocking cell differentiation, inducing chromosomal instability, DNA mutations, inducing migration, and angiogenesis (
22). Given the potential role of HCMV in developing breast cancer, several factors may be associated with different results.
False-negative results, false-positive results, and the type of samples selected for comparison are the possible reasons for different results with PCR. Lacking quality evaluation of the studied DNA, Laser microdissection since the reduction in the number of viruses used, lack of hybridization due to detecting part of the gene or polymorphism in the viral genome, and the reduction of the virus during cell division causes the absence of viral DNA resulting in false-negative results. The false-positive results are more probable in the case of contaminating samples or using placental samples of cancerous and normal tissue (
21). Other reasons include the limitations of molecular analysis, contamination with 2 or more viruses, and the use of the hit and run mechanism by viruses, which result in different results (
23).