Top

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Published in:

01-06-2018 | Clinical trial

Cross-reactivity between MUC1 antigen and MCA: false elevation of serum CA 15-3 level in pregnant and lactating women by Ma695–Ma552-based assay

Authors: Guangshu Liang, Xuqian Fang, Xiaoyi Lin, Xiaojing Feng, Huangying Lu, Yinglei Wan, Zhidong Gu

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Cancer antigen 153 (CA 15-3) is one of the most commonly used biomarkers of breast cancer. However, elevated CA 15-3 is reported in pregnant and lactating women more frequently on Beckman DxI 800 immunoassay system (Ma695–Ma552 antibody pair) than on Abbott ARCHITECT system (115D8–DF3 antibody pair) in laboratory methodological evaluation. We conducted this study in order to figure out the reason behind this phenomenon.

Methods

Serum CA 15-3 concentration was analyzed in 426 subjects, including 180 patients with breast cancer, 121 patients with benign breast disease, and 125 healthy volunteers (45 pregnant and 80 non-pregnant women). CA 15-3 assay was further validated using another cohort of 112 pregnant or postpartum women. Immunological cross reaction was analyzed by Western blotting and immunoprecipitation.

Results

The serum CA 15-3 level was abnormally higher in almost 95% of the pregnant and lactating women detected using Ma695–Ma552 antibody pair (median: 71.4 U/mL) than that detected using 115D8–DF3 antibody pair (median: 16.5 U/mL). Western blotting and immunoprecipitation indicated that such a significant difference was mainly due to the cross reaction between monoclonal antibody Ma552 and mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA).

Conclusions

The CA 15-3 assay using 115D8–DF3 antibody pair is more suitable for monitoring therapy in pregnancy-associated breast cancer.

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefPubMed

Paoletti C, Hayes DF (2014) Molecular testing in breast cancer. Annu Rev Med 65:95–110CrossRefPubMed

Albrecht H, Carraway KL 3rd (2011) MUC1 and MUC4: switching the emphasis from large to small. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 26:261–271CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Slev PR, Rawlins ML, Roberts WL (2006) Performance characteristics of seven automated CA 15-3 assays. Am J Clin Pathol 125:752–757CrossRefPubMed

Molina R, Gion M, Gressner A et al (2008) Alternative antibody for the detection of CA15-3 antigen: a European multicenter study for the evaluation of the analytical and clinical performance of the Access BR Monitor assay on the UniCel Dxl 800 Immunoassay System. Clin Chem Lab Med 46:612–622CrossRefPubMed

Ho SB, Niehans GA, Lyftogt C et al (1993) Heterogeneity of mucin gene expression in normal and neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 53:641–651PubMed

Behera SK, Praharaj AB, Dehury B et al (2015) Exploring the role and diversity of mucins in health and disease with special insight into non-communicable diseases. Glycoconj J 32:575–613CrossRefPubMed

Ho SB, Kim YS (1991) Carbohydrate antigens on cancer-associated mucin-like molecules. Semin Cancer Biol 2:389–400PubMed

Gendler SJ (2001) MUC1, the renaissance molecule. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 6:339–353CrossRefPubMed

10.

Stahli C, Caravatti M, Aeschbacher M et al (1988) Mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen defined by three monoclonal antibodies against different epitopes. Cancer Res 48:6799–6802PubMed

11.

Zenklusen HR, Stahli C, Gudat F et al (1988) The immunohistochemical reactivity of a new anti-epithelial monoclonal antibody (MAb b-12) against breast carcinoma and other normal and neoplastic human tissues. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 413:3–10CrossRefPubMed

12.

Giannaki G, Sarandakou A, Rizos D et al (2002) Mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen in paired serum and breast milk samples of lactating mothers and sera of their neonates in the early postpartum period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 105:120–123CrossRefPubMed

13.

Sarandakou A, Rizos D, Botsis D et al (2001) Mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA) during normal pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 96:51–54CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bieglmayer C, Szepesi T, Neunteufel W et al (1989) MCA, a monoclonal-antibody-defined breast-tumor-associated antigen and its relation to CA 15.3. Tumour Biol 10:232–242CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sarandakou A, Protonotariou E, Rizos D (2007) Tumor markers in biological fluids associated with pregnancy. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 44:151–178CrossRefPubMed

16.

Price MR, Rye PD, Petrakou E et al (1998) Summary report on the ISOBM TD-4 Workshop: analysis of 56 monoclonal antibodies against the MUC1 mucin. San Diego, Calif., November 17-23, 1996. Tumour Biol 19 Suppl 1:1-20

17.

Matsushita T, Takada W, Igarashi K et al (2014) A straightforward protocol for the preparation of high performance microarray displaying synthetic MUC1 glycopeptides. Biochim Biophys Acta 1840:1105–1116CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kufe D, Inghirami G, Abe M et al (1984) Differential reactivity of a novel monoclonal antibody (DF3) with human malignant versus benign breast tumors. Hybridoma 3:223–232CrossRefPubMed

19.

Stahli C, Takacs B, Miggiano V et al (1985) Monoclonal antibodies against antigens on breast cancer cells. Experientia 41:1377–1381CrossRefPubMed

20.

Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D et al (2017) Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 67:100–121CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cady B, Chung M (2005) Mammographic screening: no longer controversial. Am J Clin Oncol 28:1–4CrossRefPubMed

22.

Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ et al (2016) Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 375:1438–1447CrossRefPubMed

23.

Uematsu T (2017) The need for supplemental breast cancer screening modalities: a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening programs in japan. Breast cancer 24:26–31CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ramsey SD, Henry NL, Gralow JR et al (2015) Tumor marker usage and medical care costs among older early-stage breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 33:149–155CrossRefPubMed

25.

Van Poznak C, Somerfield MR, Bast RC et al (2015) Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 33:2695–2704CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Duffy MJ, Evoy D, McDermott EW (2010) CA 15-3: uses and limitation as a biomarker for breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 411:1869–1874CrossRefPubMed

27.

Uehara M, Kinoshita T, Hojo T et al (2008) Long-term prognostic study of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) in breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 13:447–451CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH et al (2008) National Academy of Clinical B: national academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem 54:e11–79CrossRefPubMed

29.

Dabrosin C (2015) An overview of pregnancy and fertility issues in breast cancer patients. Ann Med 47:673–678CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lambertini M, Goldrat O, Clatot F et al (2017) Controversies about fertility and pregnancy issues in young breast cancer patients: current state of the art. Curr Opin Oncol 29:243–252CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lambertini M, Goldrat O, Toss A et al (2017) Fertility and pregnancy issues in brca-mutated breast cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev 59:61–70CrossRefPubMed

Title: Cross-reactivity between MUC1 antigen and MCA: false elevation of serum CA 15-3 level in pregnant and lactating women by Ma695–Ma552-based assay
Authors: Guangshu Liang
Xuqian Fang
Xiaoyi Lin
Xiaojing Feng
Huangying Lu
Yinglei Wan
Zhidong Gu
Publication date: 01-06-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4700-7

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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Tamoxifen therapy improves overall survival in luminal A subtype of ductal carcinoma in situ: a study based on nationwide Korean Breast Cancer Registry database

Intrathecal trastuzumab in the management of HER2+ breast leptomeningeal disease: a single institution experience

Morbidity of local therapy for locally advanced metastatic breast cancer: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare Registry

A comprehensive tool for measuring mammographic density changes over time

The PDGF pathway in breast cancer is linked to tumour aggressiveness, triple-negative subtype and early recurrence

A high-risk 70-gene signature is not associated with the detection of tumor cell dissemination to the bone marrow

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer