Geoffrey Kim1, Lucas Minig, Elise C Kohn. 1. Medical Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20891, USA. kimgeof@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of proteomic profiling in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. METHODS: We report a thorough review of the literature, ongoing trials, and our group's experience with proteomic profiling for early detection, recurrence, and treatment of ovarian cancer. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer remains the deadliest gynecologic malignancy in the western world and is most often diagnosed at a rarely curable late stage. Novel applications of proteomic techniques, such as mass spectrometry, show promise in the quest for reliable multimodality screening programs for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Proteomic analysis of tissue samples has underscored the heterogeneity of this disease process. Development of validated assays that survey the genetic and/or proteomic makeup of an individual tumor will add greatly to the histological classification of the tumor and may lead to different treatment approaches tailored to the unique expression pattern of each individual patient. As novel agents that disrupt signal propagation develop, proteomic profiling by reverse-phase protein arrays can characterize the in-tumor efficacy of the agent by quantification of the changes in expression levels of activated proteins. Together, better understanding of the potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets followed with proof-of-target effect will lead to rational combinations of novel therapy and improve individual ovarian cancer patient outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the role of proteomic profiling in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. METHODS: We report a thorough review of the literature, ongoing trials, and our group's experience with proteomic profiling for early detection, recurrence, and treatment of ovarian cancer. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS:Ovarian cancer remains the deadliest gynecologic malignancy in the western world and is most often diagnosed at a rarely curable late stage. Novel applications of proteomic techniques, such as mass spectrometry, show promise in the quest for reliable multimodality screening programs for the early detection of ovarian cancer. Proteomic analysis of tissue samples has underscored the heterogeneity of this disease process. Development of validated assays that survey the genetic and/or proteomic makeup of an individual tumor will add greatly to the histological classification of the tumor and may lead to different treatment approaches tailored to the unique expression pattern of each individual patient. As novel agents that disrupt signal propagation develop, proteomic profiling by reverse-phase protein arrays can characterize the in-tumor efficacy of the agent by quantification of the changes in expression levels of activated proteins. Together, better understanding of the potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets followed with proof-of-target effect will lead to rational combinations of novel therapy and improve individual ovarian cancerpatient outcome.
Authors: C P Paweletz; L Charboneau; V E Bichsel; N L Simone; T Chen; J W Gillespie; M R Emmert-Buck; M J Roth; E F Petricoin III; L A Liotta Journal: Oncogene Date: 2001-04-12 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Katherine M Sheehan; Valerie S Calvert; Elaine W Kay; Yiling Lu; David Fishman; Virginia Espina; Joy Aquino; Runa Speer; Robyn Araujo; Gordon B Mills; Lance A Liotta; Emanuel F Petricoin; Julia D Wulfkuhle Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Edwin M Posadas; Meghan S Liel; Virginia Kwitkowski; Lori Minasian; Andrew K Godwin; Mahrukh M Hussain; Virginia Espina; Bradford J Wood; Seth M Steinberg; Elise C Kohn Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Rachel Hallett; Andy Ryan; Matthew Burnell; Aarti Sharma; Sara Lewis; Susan Davies; Susan Philpott; Alberto Lopes; Keith Godfrey; David Oram; Jonathan Herod; Karin Williamson; Mourad W Seif; Ian Scott; Tim Mould; Robert Woolas; John Murdoch; Stephen Dobbs; Nazar N Amso; Simon Leeson; Derek Cruickshank; Alistair McGuire; Stuart Campbell; Lesley Fallowfield; Naveena Singh; Anne Dawnay; Steven J Skates; Mahesh Parmar; Ian Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Donald R Schwartz; Sharon L R Kardia; Kerby A Shedden; Rork Kuick; George Michailidis; Jeremy M G Taylor; David E Misek; Rong Wu; Yali Zhai; Danielle M Darrah; Heather Reed; Lora H Ellenson; Thomas J Giordano; Eric R Fearon; Samir M Hanash; Kathleen R Cho Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Remi Lemaire; Sonia Ait Menguellet; Jonathan Stauber; Valerie Marchaudon; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Pierre Collinet; Marie-Odile Farine; Denis Vinatier; Robert Day; Patrick Ducoroy; Michel Salzet; Isabelle Fournier Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Nilofer S Azad; Edwin M Posadas; Virginia E Kwitkowski; Seth M Steinberg; Lokesh Jain; Christina M Annunziata; Lori Minasian; Gisele Sarosy; Herbert L Kotz; Ahalya Premkumar; Liang Cao; Deborah McNally; Catherine Chow; Helen X Chen; John J Wright; William D Figg; Elise C Kohn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Charlotte H Clarke; Christine Yip; Donna Badgwell; Eric T Fung; Kevin R Coombes; Zhen Zhang; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 5.482