Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical and Translational Oncology
Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology 6/2015

Open Access 01-06-2015 | Research Article

A new tumor biomarker, serum protein peak at 3,144 m/z, in patients with node-positive breast cancer

Authors: Z. Chen, S. Xu, D. Su, W. Liu, H. Yang, S. Xie, X. Meng, L. Lei, X. Wang

Published in: Clinical and Translational Oncology | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the association between the 3,144 m/z protein peak and the clinicopathological features and prognosis in breast cancer.

Methods

Using SELDI–TOF MS, we analyzed serum protein peak at 3,144 m/z in 283 patients with node-positive breast cancer, its relationship with clinicopathological features and their prognosis evaluating value of survival.

Results

3,144 m/z positive rate was higher in elderly patients (42.8 % in ≥50-year-old vs. 31.2 % in <50, P = 0.04). However, no correlation was observed between 3,144 m/z and other clinicopathological features (body mass index, menstrual status, family history, TNM, molecular subtypes, vascular invasion, neural invasion, p53 and CA15-3). However, the positive rate of 3,144 m/z was higher than that of CA15-3 (35.5 vs. 11.4 %, McNemar χ 2 test, p < 0.001). 3,144 m/z-negative patients (n = 177) had a better 3-year overall survival (OS) than 3,144 m/z-positive patients (n = 106) (89.8 vs. 81.2 %, P = 0.045). Younger patients (P = 0.016), postmenopausal status (P = 0.019), small tumor (P < 0.001), less positive nodes (P < 0.001), early stage (P < 0.001), favorable molecular subtype (P = 0.007), normal CA15-3 (P = 0.003) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.001) predicted better survival. Cox analysis showed that T3–4 (95 % CI 1.419–8.057, P = 0.006), lymph node metastasis (95 % CI 1.242–3.632, P = 0.006) and p53 mutation (95 % CI 1.088–6.378, P = 0.032) were independent adverse prognostic factors. But childbirth ≥2 (95 % CI 0.163–0.986, P = 0.046), adjuvant chemotherapy (95 % CI 0.062–0.921, P = 0.038) and adjuvant radiotherapy (95 % CI 0.148–0.928, P = 0.034) were the independent factors in reducing risk of death in breast cancer patients. Combination testing of 3,144 m/z and CA15-3 will improve the prognosis value of 3-year survival (P = 0.011); patients with CA153−/3144− were characterized by the longest survival (89.8 %) and the CA153+/3144+ patients by the shortest.

Conclusions

Serum protein peak at 3,144 m/z is a new biomarker for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis and showed a higher positive rate than serum CA15-3. Combining 3,144 m/z and CA15-3 testing may improve prognosis of longer survival in breast cancer patients.
Literature
1.
de Boer M, van Deurzen CHM, van Dijck JAAM, Borm GF, van Diest PJ, Adang EMM, et al. Micrometastases or isolated tumor cells and the outcome of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):653–63.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Russnes HG, Vollan HKM, Lingjærde OC, Krasnitz A, Lundin P, Naume B, et al. Genomic architecture characterizes tumor progression paths and fate in breast cancer patients. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(38):38ra47–38ra47.CrossRef
3.
Sotiriou C, Pusztai L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):790–800.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Molina R, Augé J, Escudero J, Filella X, Zanon G, Pahisa J, et al. Evaluation of tumor markers (HER-2/neu oncoprotein, CEA, and CA15.3) in patients with locoregional breast cancer: prognostic value. Tumor Biol. 2010;31(3):171–80.CrossRef
5.
Gion M, Mione R, Leon AE, Dittadi R. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CA27.29 and CA15.3 in primary breast cancer. Clin Chem. 1999;45(5):630–7.PubMed
6.
Musgrove EA, Sutherland RL. Biological determinants of endocrine resistance in breast cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(9):631–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bakry R, Rainer M, Huck CW, Bonn GK. Protein profiling for cancer biomarker discovery using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry and infrared imaging: a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2011;690(1):26–34.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Opstal-van Winden AJ, Vermeulen RH, Peeters PM, Beijnen J, Gils C. Early diagnostic protein biomarkers for breast cancer: how far have we come? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;134(1):1–12.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Böhm D, Keller K, Wehrwein N, Lebrecht A, Schmidt M, Kölbl H, et al. Serum proteome profiling of primary breast cancer indicates a specific biomarker profile. Oncol Rep. 2011;26(5):1051–6.PubMed
10.
Zhang K, Yuan K, Wu H, Li Q, Wang Y, Chen S, et al. Identification of potential markers related to neoadjuvant chemotherapy sensitivity of breast cancer by SELDI–TOF MS. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2012;166(3):753–63.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wang L, Su D, Yan HJ, Xu JH, Zheng ZG, Hu YJ, et al. Primary study of lymph node metastasis-related serum biomarkers in breast cancer. Anat Rec: Adv Integr Anat Evolut Biol. 2011;294(11):1818–24. doi:10.​1002/​ar.​21455.CrossRef
12.
Lei L, Wang XJ, Zheng ZG, Huang J, Cao WM, Chen ZH, et al. Identification of serum protein markers for breast cancer relapse with SELDI–TOF MS. Anat Rec: Adv Integr Anat Evolut Biol. 2011;294(6):941–4.CrossRef
13.
Zheng Z, Gao Y, Gu L, Mou H, Zhu C, Zhu J, et al. Discovery of metastasis-associated biomarkers in ovarian cancer using SELDI–TOF: an in vitro and clinical study. Clin Oncol Cancer Res. 2009;6(5):317–21.CrossRef
14.
Lee JH, Kim SH, Lee ES, Kim YS. CD24 overexpression in cancer development and progression: a meta-analysis. Oncol Rep. 2009;22(5):1149–56.PubMed
15.
Kristiansen G, Winzer KJ, Mayordomo E, Bellach J, Schlüns K, Denkert C, et al. CD24 expression is a new prognostic marker in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(13):4906–13.PubMed
16.
Sheridan C, Kishimoto H, Fuchs R, Mehrotra S, Bhat-Nakshatri P, Turner C, et al. CD44 +/CD24− breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis. Breast Cancer Res C7-R59. 2006;8(5):1–13.
17.
18.
Adamczyk A, Niemiec JA, Ambicka A, Mucha-Malecka A, Mitus J, Rys J. CD44/CD24 as potential prognostic markers in node-positive invasive ductal breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. J Mol Histol. 2013 [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.​1007/​s10735-013-9523-6.
19.
Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1736–47.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
20.
Nishimura R, Osako T, Nishiyama Y, Tashima R, Nakano M, Fujisue M, et al. Evaluation of factors related to late recurrence—later than 10 years after the initial treatment—in primary breast cancer. Oncology. 2013;85(2):100–10. doi:10.​1159/​000353099.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Jones T, Neboori H, Wu H, Yang Q, Haffty BG, Evans S, et al. Are breast cancer subtypes prognostic for nodal involvement and associated with clinicopathologic features at presentation in early-stage breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):2866–72. doi:10.​1245/​s10434-013-2994-6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lips EH, Mulder L, de Ronde JJ, Mandjes IA, Koolen BB, Wessels LF, et al. Breast cancer subtyping by immunohistochemistry and histological grade outperforms breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(1):63–71. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-013-2620-0.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
23.
24.
Younes A, Aggarwall BB. Clinical implications of the tumor necrosis factor family in benign and malignant hematologic disorders. Cancer. 2003;98(3):458–67.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(19):10869–74.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
26.
Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MCU, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1160–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
A new tumor biomarker, serum protein peak at 3,144 m/z, in patients with node-positive breast cancer
Authors
Z. Chen
S. Xu
D. Su
W. Liu
H. Yang
S. Xie
X. Meng
L. Lei
X. Wang
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
Clinical and Translational Oncology / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1699-048X
Electronic ISSN: 1699-3055
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-014-1264-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Clinical and Translational Oncology 6/2015 Go to the issue

Research Article

Clinical radiobiology of head and neck cancer: the hypothesis of stem cell activation

Research Article

Effects of zoledronate on the radiation-induced collagen breakdown: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Research Article

Involvement of RalB in the effect of geranylgeranyltransferase I on glioma cell migration and invasion

Research Article

Impairment of vascularization of the surface covering epithelium induces ischemia and promotes malignization: a new hypothesis of a possible mechanism of cancer pathogenesis

Educational Series – Red Series

Giant cell tumour of bone: new treatments in development

Research Article

The clinical pathological significance of FRAT1 and ROR2 expression in cartilage tumors
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits