Therapeutic Targets In Breast Cancer Signaling: A Review

For women, the most dominant type of cancer is breast cancer and perhaps one of the most recognizedreasons of death. This is a disorder of many distinct traits, many of which are known as positive hormone receptor, human epidermal receptor-2 (HER2+), and three negative breast cancers (TNBC). Drugs that directly target and kill tumors constitute a rapidly-growing form of molecular therapy for cancer patients. Analysis reveals that stable breast tissue cells exhibit receptors which aren't usually present. As a result, it is imperative to cognize the molecular roots of breast cancer and the myriad compromised pathology-related processes and pathways to ensure progresses in early diagnosis and prevention. This study demonstrates essential cellular pathways relevant for breast cancer including improvements in cell proliferation, apoptosis, and hormone balances in breast tissues. On the basis of these notions, we consider how breast cancer is associated to the creation of potentially therapeutic interventions and predictive biomarkers.

Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Characterization of Label-Free Biosensors for the Detection of HER2 in Saliva

Breast cancer is the leading cancer type for women with two million new yearly infections and more than half a million dead worldwide. Human Epidermal Receptor 2 (HER2) is a prominent breast cancer biomarker that indicates aggressive cancer and is often associated with a bad prognosis and low survival rates. However, current detection methods for HER2 are often time-consuming, expensive, and require a high level of expertise. Biosensors are devices that turn biological interaction into a readable electronic signal; they are known for their high specificity and selectivity for low concentration, as well as their low cost and ease of use, thus making them a better alternative to traditional methods. Also, saliva is becoming a better alternative to blood for the detection of biomarkers due to its non-invasive collection in large quantities with simple collection methods with a richness in disease biomarkers including HER2. Thus, this project aims to develop a label-free, low cost, electrochemical biosensor for the detection of HER2 in saliva. This was done by first depositing diazonium salt onto a screen-printed electrode (SPE) through cyclic voltammetry, then immobilizing anti-HER2 antibodies on the activated SPE using 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylamino) propyl carbodiimide/N-hydroxysuccinimide. HER2 biomarker concentrations were detected using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy inside a microfluidic system. The biosensor showed a higher linear detection of HER2 (Y = 0.0062X + 0.1066/R2 = 0.9909) in its physiological concentration range of 5 and 40 pg/mL when compared to other interference proteins: Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (Y = 0.0016X + 0.0188/R2 = 0.8072) and Human Epidermal Receptor 3 (Y = (0.0035X + 0.0225/R2 = 0.1302). The biosensor was then used to detect 10 pg/mL of HER2 concentration in real saliva using the standard addition methods (Y = 0.0118X + 0.1282/R2 = 0.9876).

The introduction of a third CDK4/6 inhibitor does not change the cost-effectiveness profile in first and subsequent-lines after progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor-2 negative (HER-2) advanced or metastatic breast cancer

The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacological costs of CDK4/6-inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) in hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). We have considered pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic BC in first-line in association with letrozole or anastrozole (scenario 1) and in subsequent-lines after progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy (scenario 2).The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and are expressed in euros (€). Six phase III RCTs, including 3843 patients, were considered. In the scenario 1, abemaciclib resulted the less expensive at the full dose, with 2246 € per month of progression free survival (PFS)-gained. Overall ribociclib resulted the less expensive considering the reduction in dosage (36.1% in MONALEESA-2 trial versus (vs). 36.0% of palbociclib in PALOMA-2 trial vs. 43.4% of abemaciclib in MONARCH-3 trial). The price was the same for palbociclib and abemaciclib both at full and with dose reduction. In the scenario 2, the situation was similar to the scenario 1, but with lowest costs for ribociclib per month PFS-gained both at full dose (2070 €) and at dose reduction (1391 € and 690 € at 400 mg and 200 mg, respectively). Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the PFS, ribociclib was the less expensive in both scenarios.