CA153 in Breast Secretions as a Potential Molecular Marker for Diagnosing Breast Cancer: A Meta Analysis

Tang, Shifu; Wei, Lili; Sun, Yifan; Zhou, Fang; Zhu, Shengbo; Yang, Renqi; Huang, Yiyong; Zhang, Hongyu; Xu, Hongxia; Yang, Jianqing

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163030

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although only two of the eligible studies of blood examined here, which were based on 79 early stage patients and 58 advanced stage patients, reported clinical stage information [ 21 , 23 ], a similar methylation level was found during early stage and advanced stage breast cancer (0.56 vs. 0.57, respectively). In the clinical setting, carbohydrate antigen 153 (CA153), a more specific and sensitive marker than cancer embryonic antigen (CEA), may be applied as a noninvasive biomarker for breast screening, but not a very useful biomarker for breast cancer diagnosis because of a low sensitivity (sensitivity: ∼ 0.63; specificity: ∼0.82), especially early breast cancer [ 38 – 40 ]. The above analyses suggest that 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation may be a promising blood-based biomarker for the early and non-invasive diagnosis of patients with breast cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of14-3-3 sigma(σ) promoter methylation as a noninvasive biomarker using blood samples for breast cancer diagnosis

Huang

Ying

et al. 2016

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a tumor suppressor gene, 14-3-3 σ has been reported to be frequently methylated in breast cancer. However, the clinical effect of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation remains to be verified. This study was performed to assess the clinicopathological significance and diagnostic value of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation in breast cancer. 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation was found to be notably higher in breast cancer than in benign lesions and normal breast tissue samples. We did not observe that 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation was linked to the age status, tumor grade, clinic stage, lymph node status, histological subtype, ER status, PR status, HER2 status, or overall survival of patients with breast cancer. The combined sensitivity, specificity, AUC (area under the curve), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and post-test probability values (if the pretest probability was 30%) of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation in blood samples of breast cancer patients vs. healthy subjects were 0.69, 0.99, 0.86, 95, 0.31, 302, and 98%, respectively. Our findings suggest that 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation may be associated with the carcinogenesis of breast cancer and that the use of 14-3-3 σ promoter methylation might represent a useful blood-based biomarker for the clinical diagnosis of breast cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of14-3-3 sigma(σ) promoter methylation as a noninvasive biomarker using blood samples for breast cancer diagnosis

Huang

Ying

et al. 2016

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen, bone scans, and MRI are used to screen and stage distant metastases. However, the efficacy of clinical methods, including serum antigen protein markers and radiological imaging, is insufficient for breast cancer diagnosis and staging ( 3 , 4 ). As a useful tool for the in vivo assaying of the metabolic characteristics of breast cancer ( 5 , 6 ), positron-emission tomography (PET) using radioactive tracer 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) has been introduced as an additional imaging modality for these patients, facilitating breast cancer staging, distant-metastasis detection, prognostic prediction, and especially evaluation of the pathological response to treatment ( 7 , 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer

Ming

Qian

et al. 2020

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer is a major disease with high morbidity and mortality in women worldwide. Increased use of imaging biomarkers has been shown to add more information with clinical utility in the detection and evaluation of breast cancer. To date, numerous studies related to PET-based imaging in breast cancer have been published. Here, we review available studies on the clinical utility of different PET-based molecular imaging methods in breast cancer diagnosis, staging, distant-metastasis detection, therapeutic and prognostic prediction, and evaluation of therapeutic responses. For primary breast cancer, PET/MRI performed similarly to MRI but better than PET/CT. PET/CT and PET/MRI both have higher sensitivity than MRI in the detection of axillary and extra-axillary nodal metastases. For distant metastases, PET/CT has better performance in the detection of lung metastasis, while PET/MRI performs better in the liver and bone. Additionally, PET/CT is superior in terms of monitoring local recurrence. The progress in novel radiotracers and PET radiomics presents opportunities to reclassify tumors by combining their fine anatomical features with molecular characteristics and develop a beneficial pathway from bench to bedside to predict the treatment response and prognosis of breast cancer. However, further investigation is still needed before application of these modalities in clinical practice. In conclusion, PET-based imaging is not suitable for early-stage breast cancer, but it adds value in identifying regional nodal disease and distant metastases as an adjuvant to standard diagnostic imaging. Recent advances in imaging techniques would further widen the comprehensive and convergent applications of PET approaches in the clinical management of breast cancer.

show abstract

“…Many screening methods have been used for early detection of breast cancer, such as breast self-examination, mammography, ultrasonography, mammography, and exfoliative cytology. [8,9] Although these techniques increase the detection rate of early breast cancer, there are still some limitations. [9] Therefore, enormous efforts have been exerted to explore biomarkers for the early diagnosis of breast cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[8,9] Although these techniques increase the detection rate of early breast cancer, there are still some limitations. [9] Therefore, enormous efforts have been exerted to explore biomarkers for the early diagnosis of breast cancer. Scholars have conducted some systematic reviews (SRs) to assess the diagnostic value of microRNA, prostate-specific antigen, and circulating cell-free DNA for detecting breast cancer and some biomarkers showed potential diagnostic value.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview protocol of biomarkers for breast cancer detection

Sheng¹,

Wang

et al. 2019

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Among females, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death over 100 countries. Generally, the prognosis of early-stage breast cancer is good. However, the prognosis is very poor when the disease is diagnosed at an advanced stage. Many screening methods have been used for early detection of breast cancer, but there are some limitations of these methods. Recently, some systematic reviews have evaluated the value of biomarkers for detecting breast cancer. However, most of the systematic reviews (SRs) only evaluated the diagnostic value of 1 biomarker, and it is unclear which biomarker is the best diagnostic test for breast cancer. This overview aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of available systematic reviews and to compare the diagnostic value of different biomarkers. Methods: PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched to identify published systematic reviews reporting the value of biomarkers for detecting breast cancer. Title and abstracts, as well as full texts, were screened in duplicate based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis diagnostic test accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) checklist will be used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. We will conduct the pairwise meta-analysis and indirect comparisons using STATA 13.0. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal Conclusion: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of different biomarkers for the diagnosis of breast cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019125880.

show abstract

CA153 in Breast Secretions as a Potential Molecular Marker for Diagnosing Breast Cancer: A Meta Analysis

Cited by 23 publications

References 37 publications

Detection of14-3-3 sigma(σ) promoter methylation as a noninvasive biomarker using blood samples for breast cancer diagnosis

Detection of14-3-3 sigma(σ) promoter methylation as a noninvasive biomarker using blood samples for breast cancer diagnosis

Progress and Future Trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI Molecular Imaging Approaches for Breast Cancer

An overview protocol of biomarkers for breast cancer detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About