The presence of occult cytokeratin-positive metastatic cells in bone marrow increases the risk of relapse in patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer.

Plasma values of d-dimer, a stable end product of plasmin-induced fibrinolysis, were ascertained in 128 female patients with mammary carcinoma. These patients demonstrated significantly increased d-dimers in comparison with the control group with benign mammary disease (p < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of d-dimer were slightly higher than those of the established tumour marker CA 15-3 and CEA. There was no correlation between d-dimers in the plasma and increased expression of urokinase plasminogen activator (UPA) in the tissue. Increased d-dimers in the plasma of female patients with mammary carcinoma reflect multi-factoral interactions between carcinoma growth and the haemostatic-fibrinolytic system, and may be used as tumour markers.

Objective: Biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 are guideline recommended by ASCO, USA, and AGO, Germany, to be used in primary breast cancer to avoid unnecessary CTX in medium risk recurrence patients [G2, N−, HR+, Her2neu−, &gt;35 years]. For quality assurance of uPA/PAI-1 testing an analysis of test-therapy concordance was performed. Methods: Prospective, non-interventional, multi-center study over two years among six Certified Breast Centers in Germany to analyze application of uPA/PAI-1 and use of the result in consecutive decision making in Tumor Board decision and actual therapy in the clinical setting for AOK Bayern-insured patients. Concordance and discordance rates of uPA/PAI-1 testing in daily clinical setting were calculated and individual reasons for decision making analyzed. Results: Among n=93 uPA/PAI-1 tests evaluated n=42/93 (45.2%) were uPA+PAI-1 negative and n=51/93 (54.8%) uPA and/or PAI-1 positive. In the group of uPA+PAI-1 negative test result in n=35/42 (83.3%) CTX was avoided and and in n=7/42 (16.7%) CTX performed. In the group of uPA and/or PAI-1 positive test result in n=26/51 (51.0%) CTX was performed and in n=25/51 (49.0%) not. Concordance of uPA/PAI-1 test result vs. consecutive therapy was (35+26)/93=65.6% and discordance of uPA/PAI-1 test-therapy (7+25)/93 = 34.4%. However, discordance of uPA/PAI-1 test result vs. Tumor Board recommendation was only n=21/93 (22.6%). As reasons for discordance a variety of influencing and/or interference factors were indentified, affecting use of test and test results or even changing therapy decision, e.g. individual therapy decision by physician, parallel use of competitive biomarkers, study participation, missing CTX therapy option in advance (like advanced age), wrong target group, timing of uPA/PAI-1 test too early, test result in contradiction of physicians' expectations (expected negative result) and rejection of CTX recommended by patients despite uPA/PAI-1 test-proven benefit. Conclusions: Individual process optimization of uPA/PAI-1 test indication, performance and result assessment could improve quality of care, reduce costs and lead to an improved application of uPA/PAI-1 test results as well as more stringency and consistency of test-therapy decisions in daily clinical setting. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-06.