European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 160 (2012) 201–204

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and

Reproductive Biology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejogrb

Comparison of the dermatoglyphic characteristics of women with and without

breast cancer
Elaheh Sariri a, Maryam Kashanian b,*, Mansoureh Vahdat a, Saeedeh Yari b
a
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hazrat Rasool Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran
b
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran

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.

1. Introduction the influence of environmental factors [5–7]. However, after this

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women,
constituting approximately one-third of malignancies in women.
It is also the second highest cause of death due to cancer, second
only to lung cancer [1,2]. The incidence of breast cancer in Iran is
considerable, and the disease represents one of the most important
problems for the Iranian healthcare system [3].
Due to the high prevalence of breast cancer, numerous studies
have been undertaken. The exact aetiology of breast cancer has not
been determined to date, but genetic and environmental factors
have been proposed [2,4]. A relationship between different genes
and breast cancer has been reported, such that a women with these
genes has a 60–80% higher risk of breast cancer [4]. These
abnormal genes may also play a significant role in other cancers,
particularly ovarian and uterine cancers [2].
According to studies, skin ridges on the fingers and palms
develop in the primary stages of fetal life, influenced by genetic
factors. In the first trimester of pregnancy and the critical period
of embryogenesis, dermatoglyphic patterns may change due to
* Corresponding author at: No. 9, Mostaghimi Alley, Khajeh Nasir Toosi Avenue,
Postcode 16117, Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 21 77523487; fax: +98 21 77607016.
E-mail address: maryamkashanian@yahoo.com (M. Kashanian).
time, little change is seen in an individual’s dermatoglyphic
pattern. Therefore, studies have tried to determine correlations
between defined genetic disorders and dermatoglyphic patterns
of individuals and their possible tendency towards certain
disorders [7].
Dermatoglyphic analysis is the evaluation of palm and finger
skin ridges, and has a history of approximately 70 years [6,7]. The
skin ridges of fingertips (Fig. 1) are classified as arch, loop and
whorl patterns, seen in approximately 4%, 51% and 45% of
individuals, respectively. It should be noted that skin ridges on
the right and left hands are not identical in an individual [5].
There are many different classification systems for dermato-
glyphic patterns, but they are fairly similar. The most common
classification system is as follows [6,7]:
 Class 1, number of whorl patterns on the fingers of the right and
left hands;
 Class 2, skin ridge distributions on both index fingers;
 Class 3, skin ridge patterns on the index fingers, middle fingers
and ring fingers of both hands;
 Class 4, loop, arch and whorl patterns on both small fingers;
 Class 5, number of skin ridge patterns on eight fingers (excluding
the small fingers); and
 Class 6, whorl patterns on the thumbs of both hands.

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

Fig. 1. Dermatoglyphic patterns of fingertips.

Special dermatoglyphic patterns have been studied in congeni-
tal disorders such as Down’s syndrome (Trisomy 21), Klinefelter’s
syndrome and Turner’s syndrome [8,9], as well as coronary heart
disease, type 2 diabetes, schizophrenia, cerebral palsy and
Alzheimer’s disease [10–13]. Research has also been undertaken
on the dermatoglyphic characteristics of women with breast
cancer. However, no special or unique dermatoglyphic patterns for
breast cancer have been identified to date, possibly due to the
interaction between genetic and environmental factors in the
genesis of breast cancer [14–16].
Given the high prevalence of breast cancer, it would be very
helpful if dermatoglyphic evaluation could determine which
women are at risk. This would represent a cheap, safe and
accessible method of screening.
The aim of the present study was to compare the dermatoglyphic
characteristics of women with and without breast cancer quantita-
tively and qualitatively in order to determine if dermatoglyphic
characteristics can be used as a screening tool for breast cancer.
2. Materials and methods
This case–control study was conducted between March 2007 and
March 2008. The cases (n = 130) were women who had histopatho-
logically confirmed breast cancer, and the controls (n = 127) were
women in the same age group but without breast cancer.
The inclusion criteria were: histopathologically confirmed
breast cancer (case group); consent to participate in the study;
and no history of any malignancies of the colon, pancreas, ovary,
endemetrium, cervix, gall bladder or skin in first-degree relatives.
The study was approved by the institutional review board and
the institutional ethics committee. Written informed consent was
obtained from all participants.
Samples were obtained by rolling fingers in ink and then
pressing the fingers onto glossy paper. The samples were evaluated
by a well-trained specialist.
Ridge counts and quantitative and qualitative evaluations of
dermatologlyphic patterns were compared between the two
groups. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences Version 13 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA). Chi-squared test and t-test were used for comparisons.
3. Results
In total, 257 women were evaluated: 130 women in the case
group and 127 women in the control group. Age, age at menarche,
age at first pregnancy, marital status, ever having been pregnant,
performing exercise, smoking status and history of breast feeding
did not differ significantly between the groups. However,
significant differences were found in being menopausal, age at
onset of menopause and family history of breast cancer between
the groups (Table 1). Loop and whorl patterns were the most
common patterns in both groups; the difference between the
groups was not significant (Table 2).
The distribution of whorl patterns and the number of whorl
patterns on odd and even fingers (Class 1) did not differ significantly
between the two groups (Table 3). In addition, no significant
difference was found in the distribution of patterns on the index
fingers of both hands (Class 2). For Class 3 (distribution of patterns on
the index fingers, middle fingers and ring fingers of both hands), no
significant difference was found between the two groups: right
index finger (p = 0.817), right middle finger (p = 0.459), right ring
finger (p = 0.873), left index finger (p = 0.426), left middle finger
(p = 0.694) and left ring finger (p = 0.401). Finally, no significant
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)

Age (years), mean  SD 48.4  10.1 47.8  8.2 0.454

Age at menarche, mean  SD 14.1  5.6 14.4  9.7 0.778
Menopausal, n (%) 77 (59.2%) 30 (22.6%) 0.001* 4.9 (2.9–8.5)
Age at menopause (years), mean  SD 45.1  7.6 48.1  4.1 0.05* 1.8(1.4–2.1)
Married, n (%) 118 (90.8%) 125 (98.4%) 0.07
Age at first pregnancy (years), mean  SD 24.7  12.8 22.8  5.5 0.141
Exercise, n (%) 66 (50.8%) 62 (48.8%) 0.621
Smoker, n (%) 13(10%) 8 (6%) 0.219
Ever pregnant, n (%) 115 (88.5%) 114 (89.8%) 0.758
Family history of breast cancer, n (%) 29 (22.3%) 5 (3.9%) 0.001* 7.35 (2.74–19.6)
Breast feeding, n (%) 108 (83.1%) 112 (88%) 0.259

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.

* significant.
 E. Sariri et al. / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 160 (2012) 201–204 203

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

Right thumb Arch 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 0.518

Loop 18 (62.1%) 50 (49.5%)
Whorl 11 (37.9%) 49 (48.5%)
Right index Arch 2 (6.9%) 9 (8.9%) 0.857
Loop 15 (51.7%) 45 (44.6%)
Whorl 12 (41.4%) 47 (46.5%)
Right middle Arch 1 (3.4%) 12 (11.9%) 0.447
Loop 22 (75.9%) 68 (67.3%)
Whorl 6 (20.7%) 21 (20.8%)
Right ring Arch 0 (0%) 3 (3%) 0.450
Loop 15 (51.7%) 50 (49.5%)
Whorl 14 (48.3%) 48 (47.5%)
Right small Arch 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 0.09
Loop 21 (72.4%) 86 (85.1%)
Whorl 8 (27.6%) 13 (12.9%)
Left thumb Arch 3 (10.3%) 3 (3%) 0.433
Loop 11(37.9%) 49 (48.5%)
Whorl 15 (51.7%) 49 (48.5%)
Left index Arch 4 (13.8%) 17 (16.8%) 0.424
Loop 12 (41.4%) 41 (40.6%)
Whorl 13 (44.8%) 43 (42.6%)
Left middle Arch 5 (17.2%) 21 (20.8%) 0.887
Loop 16 (55.2%) 50 (49.5%)
Whorl 8 (27.6%) 30 (29.7%)
Left ring Arch 0 (0%) 3 (3%) 0.088
Loop 13 (44.8%) 57 (56.4%)
Whorl 16 (55.2%) 41 (40.6%)
Left small Arch 1 (3.4%) 2 (2%) 0.743
Loop 19 (65.5%) 85 (84.2%)
Whorl 9 (31%) 14 (13.9%)
Number of even fingers, 14.41  10.907 15.18  12.175 0.764
mean  SD
Number of odd fingers, 10.72  9.939 12.34  10.902 0.382
mean  SD
Number of Class 4, mean  SD 13.86  3.88 13.3  4.507 0.332
Number of Class 5, mean  SD 14.77  4.616 13.8  5.217 0.394

SD, standard deviation.

204 E. Sariri et al. / European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 160 (2012) 201–204
breast cancer, but found that women with breast cancer were
significantly more likely to have six or more whorl patterns in
their fingerprints compared with women without breast cancer.
Seltzer et al. suggested that this might be used to identify women
who may be at risk in the future. Sridevi et al. [18] performed a
study on 100 women with breast cancer in India, and found a
significant difference in the dermatoglyphic patterns between
women with and without breast cancer in terms of the number of
lines and the patterns. This study supported the use of
dermatoglyphic patterns to identify women at risk of breast
cancer. Another study by Seltzer [19] reported a significant
difference between women with and without breast cancer in
terms of the presence of six or more whorl patterns, in accordance
with their previous study [17]. Bierman et al. [20] suggested that
the differences between studies may be explained by the way in
which environmental differences affect a fetus during the first
trimester of pregnancy [5–7].
Environmental factors may be much more important than
genetic factors alone. As such, it seems reasonable to perform more
studies among individuals with different ethnic and environmen-
tal backgrounds and different races who are affected by different
environmental situations in order to elucidate and differentiate the
role of genetic and environmental factors. Various dermatoglyphic
indexes (numbers, patterns, distribution, etc.) should be evaluated
in order to find the best index.
The present study evaluated various indexes, and also studied
the dermatoglyphic patterns of women with breast cancer with
and without a family history of breast cancer; no significant
difference was found.
It may be useful to perform a cohort study on women who are at
high risk for breast cancer, according to their family history, in
order to find a relationship between dermatoglyphic patterns and
breast cancer in order to identify which groups of women may
benefit from dermatoglyphic evaluation.
Dermatoglyphic patterns can be used as a screening test for
breast cancer in some women, but not all. Dermatoglyphic patterns
have been suggested as a tool to determine the genetic back-
grounds of specific diseases such as schizophrenia [11,13], Down’s
syndrome [9], cerebral palsy [10,21], glaucoma [22] and larynx
cancer [23]; this can also be used for breast cancer, but by clearing
the whole concept.
In conclusion, it is too early to suggest the use of dermato-
glyphic characteristics as a screening test for breast cancer. Many
questions still need to be answered.
References
[1] Olopade OI, Grushko TA, Nanda R, Huo D. Advances in breast cancer. Pathway
to personalized medicine. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:7988–99.
[2] Edlich RF, Cross CL, Wack CA, Chase ME, Lin KY, Long WB. Breast cancer and
ovarian cancer genetics: an update. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol
2008;27:245–56.
[3] Mousavi SM, Montazeri A, Mohagheghi MA, et al. Breast cancer in Iran: an
epidemiological review. Breast J 2007;13:383–91.
[4] Chia KS. Gene–environment interaction in breast cancer. Novartis Found Symp
2008;293:143–50.
[5] Wertelecki W. Dermatoglyphic investigations: expanding prospects. Birth
Defects Orig Artic Ser 1991;27:65–93.
[6] Alter M. Dermatoglyphic analysis as a diagnostic tool. Medicine (Baltimore)
1967;46:35–56.
[7] Babler WJ. Embryonic development of epidermal ridges and their
configurations. In: Plato CC, Garrote RM, Schaumman B, editors. Dermato-
glyphics: science in transition. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1991. p. 95–112.
[8] Kebyliansky E, Bejerano M, Vainder M, Bat-Miriam Katznelson M. Relationship
between genetic anomalies of different levels and deviations in dermatoglyph-
ic traits. Part 2. Dermatoglyphic peculiarities of females with Turner’s syn-
drome. Anthropol Anz 1997;55:315–48.
[9] Rajangam S, Janakiram S, Thomas IM. Dermatoglyphics in Down’s syndrome. J
Indian Med Assoc 1995;93:10–3.
[10] Simsek S, Taskiran H, Karakaya N. Dermatoglyphic analysis in children with
CP. Neurobiology BP 1998;6:373–80.
[11] Varma SL, Chary TV, Singh S, Ashoro MZ. Dermatoglyphic patterns in schizo-
phrenic patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1995;91:213–5.
[12] Weinreb HJ. Fingerprint pattern in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology
1985;42:50–4.
[13] Bolgir RS, Murthy RS, Wig NN. Genetic loading in schizophrenia (dermato-
glyphic study). Isr J Med Sci 1993;29:265–8.
[14] Chintamani, Khandelwal R, Mittal A, et al. Qualitative and quantitative der-
matoglyphic traits in patients with breast cancer: a prospective clinical study.
BMC Cancer 2007;13:44.
[15] Rudan P, Pisl Z, Basek B, et al. Quantitative dermatoglyphic traits in patients
with breast cancer: preliminary report. Acta Med Iugosl 1980;34:73–9.
[16] De Andre’s Basauri L, Baneo L, Carulla J. Genetic factors in breast cancer.
Identification of a high risk group by means of dermatoglyphic investigation.
Oncology 1975;32:27–33.
[17] Seltzer MH, Plato CC, Fox KM. Dermatoglyphics in the identification of women
either with or at risk for breast cancer. Am J Med Genet 1990;37:482–8.
[18] Sridevi NS, Delphine Silvia CR, Kulkarni R, Seshagiri C. Palmar dermatoglyphics in
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
breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1982;2:261–5.
[20] Bierman HR, Faith MR, Stewart ME. Digital dermatoglyphics in mammary
cancer. Cancer Invest 1988;6:15–27.
[21] Polovina-Proloscic T, Milicic J, Cvjeticanin M, Polovina A, Polovina S. Compari-
son of digito-palmar dermatoglyphic traits in children with cerebral palsy and
their close family members. Coll Antropol 2009;33:925–31.
[22] Novak-Laus K, Milicic J, Tedeschi-Reiner E, Ivekovic R, Mijic V, Masnee-
Paskvalins S. Analysis of the quantitative dermatoglyphic traits of the
digito-palmar complex in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Coll
Antropol 2005;29:637–42.
[23] Rudic M, Milicic J, Letinic D. Dermatoglyphics and larynx cancer. Coll Antropol
2005;29:179–83.