Literature DB >> 15095022

Biomolecular features of clinical relevance in breast cancer.

Maria Grazia Daidone1, Angelo Paradiso, Massimo Gion, Nadia Harbeck, Fred Sweep, Manfred Schmitt.   

Abstract

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and its consequent complexity is a major challenge for physicians and biologists. Notwithstanding its potential curability due to the availability of treatment modalities which are effective in the presence of favourable clinical or pathobiological features, there is still a great deal of controversy over its clinical management. In recent decades, tumour biomarkers that are indicative of or related to cell traits characterising malignancy--that is self-sufficiency in proliferative growth signals, insensitivity to growth inhibitory signals, evasion of apoptosis, limitless replicative potential, and activation of pathways leading to neo-angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis--have provided information that has been proven to be associated with disease progression. However, when these biomarkers have been analysed individually, their prognostic relevance has been found to be modest, the only remaining clinically useful biomarkers being cell proliferation and plasminogen activation-related factors for prognosis, and steroid hormone receptors and the oncogene HER2/neu for prediction of response to hormonal therapy or to the novel targeted anti-HER2/neu therapy. It therefore remains necessary to reduce the intrinsic complexity of breast cancer in order to improve its clinical outcome. One way to achieve this objective derives directly from the concept that cancer is a genetic disease at the somatic level and from the recent availability of high-throughput post-genomic analytical tools such as gene and protein expression techniques for global gene expression analysis. Following these novel approaches, a number of recent studies have produced gene expression profiles in breast cancer that are markedly associated with disease progression and directed to answer different clinical and biological questions. However, the outcome of these novel studies still needs to be validated, which will entail cooperation between different specialists and integration of all the different skills involved in translational research in oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15095022     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1522-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  80 in total

1.  Expression of cyclins E, A, and B, and prognosis in lymph node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Kühling; Per Alm; Håkan Olsson; Mårten Fernö; Bo Baldetorp; Reza Parwaresch; Pierre Rudolph
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.996

2.  Predicting the future of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ake Borg; Mårten Fernö; Carsten Peterson
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 53.440

3.  p27 expression as a prognostic factor of breast cancer in Taiwan.

Authors:  J S Chu; C S Huang; K J Chang
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  1999-07-01       Impact factor: 8.679

Review 4.  Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers.

Authors:  D F Hayes; R C Bast; C E Desch; H Fritsche; N E Kemeny; J M Jessup; G Y Locker; J S Macdonald; R G Mennel; L Norton; P Ravdin; S Taube; R J Winn
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1996-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Revision of the standards for the assessment of hormone receptors in human breast cancer; report of the second E.O.R.T.C. Workshop, held on 16-17 March, 1979, in the Netherlands Cancer Institute.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 6.  Twenty years of experience with the steroid receptor external quality assessment program - the paradigm for tumour biomarker EQA studies. On behalf of the EROTC Receptor and Biomarker Study Group.

Authors:  J Geurts-Moespot; R Leake; T J Benraad; C G Sweep
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  Prognostic significance of biologic markers in node-negative breast cancer patients: a prospective study.

Authors:  A Volpi; F De Paola; O Nanni; A M Granato; P Bajorko; A Becciolini; E Scarpi; A Riccobon; M Balzi; D Amadori
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 8.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

Authors:  P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Prognostic implication of cyclin E expression and its relationship with cyclin D1 and p27Kip1 expression on tissue microarrays of node negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Sehwan Han; Kyeongmee Park; Byung-Noe Bae; Ki Hwan Kim; Hong-Joo Kim; Young-Duck Kim; Hong-Yong Kim
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.454

10.  Soluble adhesion molecules (E-selectin, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1) in breast carcinoma.

Authors:  D M O'Hanlon; H Fitzsimons; J Lynch; S Tormey; C Malone; H F Given
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 9.162

View more
  1 in total

1.  Hormone receptor and ERBB2 status in gene expression profiles of human breast tumor samples.

Authors:  Anna Dvorkin-Gheva; John A Hassell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.