Circulating tumor markers in breast cancer: Accepted utilities and novel prospects

1998 ◽  
pp. 329-349
Author(s):  
Vered Stearns ◽  
Hideko Yamauchi ◽  
Daniel F. Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers

Serum Tumor Markers in Stage I-II Breast Cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Tozzoli ◽  
Federica D';Aurizio ◽  
Flavio Falcomer ◽  
Stefano M.M. Basso ◽  
Franco Lumachi
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Serum Tumor Markers

scholarly journals Clinical impact of PTEN methylation status as a prognostic marker for breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amal Ramadan ◽  
Maha Hashim ◽  
Amr Abouzid ◽  
Menha Swellam
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Prognostic Marker ◽  
Methylation Status ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Duct Carcinoma ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Aberrant DNA methylation of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene has been found in many cancers. The object of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of PTEN methylation as a prognostic marker in breast cancer. The study includes 153 newly diagnosed females, and they were divided according to their clinical diagnosis into breast cancer patients (n = 112) and females with benign breast lesion (n = 41). A group of healthy individuals (n = 25) were recruited as control individuals. Breast cancer patients were categorized into early stage (0–I, n = 48) and late stage (II–III, n = 64), and graded into low grade (I–II, n = 42) and high grade (III, n = 70). Their pathological types were invasive duct carcinoma (IDC) (n = 66) and duct carcinoma in situ (DCI) (n = 46). Tumor markers (CEA and CA15.3) were detected using ELISA. DNA was taken away from the blood, and the PTEN promoter methylation level was evaluated using the EpiTect Methyl II PCR method. Results The findings revealed the superiority of PTEN methylation status as a good discriminator of the cancer group from the other two groups (benign and control) with its highest AUC and increased sensitivity (96.4%) and specificity (100%) over tumor markers (50% and 84% for CEA and 49.1% and 86.4% for CA15.3), respectively. The frequency of PTEN methylation was 96.4% of breast cancer patients and none of the benign and controls showed PTEN methylation and the means of PTEN methylation (87 ± 0.6) were significantly increased in blood samples of breast cancer group as compared to both benign and control groups (25 ± 0.7 and 12.6 ± 0.3), respectively. Methylation levels of PTEN were higher in the blood of patients with ER-positive than in patients with ER-negative cancers (P = 0.007) and in HER2 positive vs. HER2 negative tumors (P = 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis recognizes PTEN methylation status as a significant forecaster of bad progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), after 40 months follow-up. Conclusions PETN methylation could be supposed as one of the epigenetic aspects influencing the breast cancer prognosis that might foretell more aggressive actions and worse results in breast cancer patients.

Evaluation of tumor markers (HER-2/neu oncoprotein, CEA, and CA 15.3) in patients with locoregional breast cancer: prognostic value

Tumor Biology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Molina ◽  
Jose M. Augé ◽  
Jose M. Escudero ◽  
Xavier Filella ◽  
Gabriel Zanon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Ca 15.3 ◽  
Her 2

scholarly journals Improved sensitivity for detection of breast cancer by combination of miR-34a and tumor markers CA 15-3 or CEA

Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (32) ◽  
pp. 22523-22536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Zaleski ◽  
Makbule Kobilay ◽  
Lars Schroeder ◽  
Manuel Debald ◽  
Alexander Semaan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers

Disposable electrochemical immunosensor for simultaneous assay of a panel of breast cancer tumor markers

The Analyst ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 137 (20) ◽  
pp. 4727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shenguang Ge ◽  
Feng Yu ◽  
Lei Ge ◽  
Mei Yan ◽  
Jinghua Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Electrochemical Immunosensor ◽  
Cancer Tumor

scholarly journals Tumor markers of breast cancer: New prospectives

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed M. Kabel
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers

Treatment and Monitoring Variability in US Metastatic Breast Cancer Care

2021 ◽  
pp. 600-614
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Caswell-Jin ◽  
Alison Callahan ◽  
Natasha Purington ◽  
Summer S. Han ◽  
Haruka Itakura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Search Engine ◽  
Query Language ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Positron Emission

PURPOSE Treatment and monitoring options for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are increasing, but little is known about variability in care. We sought to improve understanding of MBC care and its correlates by analyzing real-world claims data using a search engine with a novel query language to enable temporal electronic phenotyping. METHODS Using the Advanced Cohort Engine, we identified 6,180 women who met criteria for having estrogen receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative MBC from IBM MarketScan US insurance claims (2007-2014). We characterized treatment, monitoring, and hospice usage, along with clinical and nonclinical factors affecting care. RESULTS We observed wide variability in treatment modality and monitoring across patients and geography. Most women received first-recorded therapy with endocrine (67%) versus chemotherapy, underwent more computed tomography (CT) (76%) than positron emission tomography-CT, and were monitored using tumor markers (58%). Nearly half (46%) met criteria for aggressive disease, which were associated with receiving chemotherapy first, monitoring primarily with CT, and more frequent imaging. Older age was associated with endocrine therapy first, less frequent imaging, and less use of tumor markers. After controlling for clinical factors, care strategies varied significantly by nonclinical factors (median regional income with first-recorded therapy and imaging type, geographic region with these and with imaging frequency and use of tumor markers; P < .0001). CONCLUSION Variability in US MBC care is explained by patient and disease factors and by nonclinical factors such as geographic region, suggesting that treatment decisions are influenced by local practice patterns and/or resources. A search engine designed to express complex electronic phenotypes from longitudinal patient records enables the identification of variability in patient care, helping to define disparities and areas for improvement.

1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 793-795 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
American Society

OBJECTIVE The primary objective was to update the 1996 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. OPTIONS Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 27.29 also was considered in regard to circulatory tumor markers for breast cancer. OUTCOMES In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost effectiveness) were used. EVIDENCE A computerized literature search from 1994 to July 1997 was performed. VALUES The same values for Use, Utility, and Levels of Evidence were used by the Committee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS The same benefit, harms, and costs were used. RECOMMENDATION No changes in any guidelines were recommended (see text). VALIDATION External review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document