Breast cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide yet methods for early detection remain elusive. We describe the discovery and validation of biochemical signatures measured by mass spectrometry, performed upon blood samples from patients and controls that accurately identify (>95%) the presence of clinical breast cancer. Targeted quantitative MS/MS conducted upon 1225 individuals, including patients with breast and other cancers, normal controls as well as individuals with a variety of metabolic disorders provide a biochemical phenotype that accurately identifies the presence of breast cancer and predicts response and survival following the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The metabolic changes identified are consistent with inborn-like errors of metabolism and define a continuum from normal controls to elevated risk to invasive breast cancer. Similar results were observed in other adenocarcinomas but were not found in squamous cell cancers or hematologic neoplasms. The findings describe a new early detection platform for breast cancer and support a role for pre-existing, inborn-like errors of metabolism in the process of breast carcinogenesis that may also extend to other glandular malignancies.Statement of Significance: Findings provide a powerful tool for early detection and the assessment of prognosis in breast cancer and define a novel concept of breast carcinogenesis that characterizes malignant transformation as the clinical manifestation of underlying metabolic insufficiencies.

Background: Germline mutation screening of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is performed in suspected familial breast cancer cases, but a causative mutation is found in only 30% of patients. The development of additional methods to identify good candidates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis would therefore increase the efficacy of diagnostic mutation screening. With this in mind, we developed a study to determine molecular signatures of BRCA1—or BRCA2—mutated breast cancers. Materials and Methods: Array-cgh (comparative genomic hybridization) and transcriptomic analysis were performed on a series of 103 familial breast cancers. The series included 7 breast cancers with a BRCA1 mutation and 5 breast cancers with a BRCA2 mutation. The remaining 91 cases were obtained from 73 families selected on the basis of at least 3 affected first-degree relatives or at least 2 affected first-degree relatives with breast cancer at an average age of 45 years. Array-cgh analyses were performed on a 4407 BAC-array (CIT-V8) manufactured by IntegraGen. Transcriptomic analyses were performed using an Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 chip. Results: Using supervised clustering analyses we identified two transcriptomic signatures: one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers consisting of 600 probe sets and another for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers also consisting of 600 probes sets. We also defined cgh-array signatures, based on the presence of specific genomic rearrangements, one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers and one for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers. Conclusions: This study identified molecular signatures of breast cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. Genes present in these signatures could be exploited to find new markers for such breast cancers. We also identified specific genomic rearrangements in these breast cancers, which could be screened for in a diagnostic setting using fluorescence in situ hybridization, thus improving patient selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 molecular genetic analysis.

In surgical interventions, randomization and blinding may be difficult to implement. In this situation, non-randomized prospective studies (EPNR) can generate the best evidence. The objective of this study is to evaluate, by means of the scale proposed by Downs & Black, the quality of EPNR published in our country and to assess the interobserver reproducibility of this scale. EPNR published in Acta Ortopedica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia until 2011 and prior to 2006 were included. Two of us independently applied the Downs & Black scale. The studies were stratified by period of publication, journal and type of intervention. The scores obtained were considered to assess the reliability of the scale and groups comparison. 59 studies were considered, seven excluded during the assessments. There were no differences between the scores, except for the type of intervention, which showed better methodological quality for studies involving clinical interventions (p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient for the Downs & Black score was 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.88), demonstrating good reliability. EPNR present methodological quality similar when stratified by the periodic publication and publication period. Studies with clinical interventions have better methodological quality. The Downs & Black scale shows good interobserver reproducibility.

No abstract