Literature DB >> 20647302

Current and emerging biomarkers in breast cancer: prognosis and prediction.

Marion T Weigel1, Mitch Dowsett.   

Abstract

Breast cancer treatment has experienced several changes in the past decades due to the discovery of specific prognostic and predictive biomarkers that enable the application of more individualized therapies to different molecular subgroups. These subgroups show specific differences regarding biological clinical behavior. In addition to the classical clinical prognostic factors of breast cancer, established molecular biomarkers such as estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor have played a significant role in the selection of patients benefiting from endocrine therapy for many years. More recently, the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) has been validated to be not only a prognostic factor, but also a predictor of response to HER2 targeting therapy. The shift toward an earlier diagnosis of breast cancer due to improved imaging methods and screening programs highlights the need for new factors and combinations of biomarkers to quantify the residual risk of patients and to indicate the potential value of additional treatment strategies. The marker of proliferation Ki67 has recently emerged as an important marker due to several applications in neoadjuvant therapy in addition to its moderate prognostic value. With the introduction of high-throughput technologies, numerous multigene signatures have been identified that aim to outperform traditional markers: current prospective clinical trials are seeking evidence for their definitive role in breast cancer. There exist many more factors and approaches that have the potential to become relevant in the near future including the detection of single disseminating and circulating tumor cells in blood and bone marrow as well as of circulating cell-free DNA and microRNA. Careful randomized prospective testing and comparison with existing established factors will be required to select those emerging markers that offer substantial cost-effective benefit and thereby justify their routine use for breast cancer therapy decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20647302     DOI: 10.1677/ERC-10-0136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endocr Relat Cancer        ISSN: 1351-0088            Impact factor:   5.678


  153 in total

1.  Usefulness of positron emission mammography in the evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Irma Soldevilla-Gallardo; Sevastian S Medina-Ornelas; Cynthia Villarreal-Garza; Enrique Bargalló-Rocha; Claudia Hs Caro-Sánchez; Rodrigo Hernández-Ramírez; Enrique Estrada-Lobato
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-10-20

2.  Clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis for molecular subtypes in low-grade breast carcinoma: comparison with grade one invasive ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified.

Authors:  Shuling Wang; Weidong Li; Ning Liu; Tongxian Zhang; Han Liu; Junjun Liu; Fen Liu; Wei Zhang; Estifanos P Gebreamlak; Yun Niu
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Improving biomarker list stability by integration of biological knowledge in the learning process.

Authors:  Tiziana Sanavia; Fabio Aiolli; Giovanni Da San Martino; Andrea Bisognin; Barbara Di Camillo
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Comparative study of Her-2, p53, Ki-67 expression and clinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer in a cohort of northern China female patients.

Authors:  Li Ding; Zijin Zhang; Yan Xu; Yongqiang Zhang
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.269

5.  RB-pathway disruption is associated with improved response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Adam Ertel; Jeanne McFalls; Matias E Valsecchi; Gordon Schwartz; Erik S Knudsen
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  The cyclin D1-CDK4 oncogenic interactome enables identification of potential novel oncogenes and clinical prognosis.

Authors:  Siwanon Jirawatnotai; Samanta Sharma; Wojciech Michowski; Bhoom Suktitipat; Yan Geng; John Quackenbush; Joshua E Elias; Steven P Gygi; Yaoyu E Wang; Piotr Sicinski
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.534

7.  Prognostic value of TMPRSS4 expression in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Bin Liang; Mingzhe Wu; Yuehua Bu; Ainong Zhao; Fang Xie
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

8.  Ki-67 and caspase expression in breast carcinoma: does variance in locational sampling exist?

Authors:  Filinte Deniz; Kaymakci Dilek; Mollamemisoglu Hande; Ugurlu M Umit; Kaya Handan
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-09-01

9.  Prognostic impact of total and tyrosine phosphorylated GIV/Girdin in breast cancers.

Authors:  Ying Dunkel; Kexin Diao; Nicolas Aznar; Lee Swanson; Lawrence Liu; Wenhong Zhu; Xiao-Yi Mi; Pradipta Ghosh
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Plasma HER2 amplification in cell-free DNA during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Troels Bechmann; Rikke Fredslund Andersen; Niels Pallisgaard; Jonna Skov Madsen; Else Maae; Erik Hugger Jakobsen; Anne Marie Bak Jylling; Karina Dahl Steffensen; Anders Jakobsen
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.