PURPOSE: Breast cancer is one of the major health problems of the Western world. Although the survival rate has improved with progress in screening and adjuvant systemic therapies, one-third of the patients with initial breast tumor have recurrence of the disease 10 years after the diagnosis, demonstrating the presence of micrometastasis. The underlying molecular mechanism of the disease needs to be better understood. Allied to genomics, proteomics technologies promise to be valuable for identifying new markers that improve screening, early diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of therapeutic response or toxicity, as well as the identification of new therapeutic targets. In this review, we present features of proteomic technology and its main implications, focusing on the protein profile in tumor tissues/cells through MALDI/SELDI, as well as on the current proteomic challenges in the breast cancer study. METHODS: We performed a research of protein profiling studies using mass spectrometry in breast cancer to identify potential biomarkers. RESULTS: Many protein peaks have been reported to bear significant diagnostic, prognostic or predictive value; however, the candidate biomarkers have not been validated for use in clinical patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Proteomics is under development and, despite technical barriers that precede the use of proteomics analysis in clinical practice and breast cancer complexity, MALDI-TOF/SELDI-TOF MS proteomic platforms with their innovations are powerful analytical tools for the detection of better protein biomarkers, since the studies are conducted with adequate statistical power and analytical rigor. In the near future, they will be able to fulfill their role in personalized medicine.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer is one of the major health problems of the Western world. Although the survival rate has improved with progress in screening and adjuvant systemic therapies, one-third of the patients with initial breast tumor have recurrence of the disease 10 years after the diagnosis, demonstrating the presence of micrometastasis. The underlying molecular mechanism of the disease needs to be better understood. Allied to genomics, proteomics technologies promise to be valuable for identifying new markers that improve screening, early diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of therapeutic response or toxicity, as well as the identification of new therapeutic targets. In this review, we present features of proteomic technology and its main implications, focusing on the protein profile in tumor tissues/cells through MALDI/SELDI, as well as on the current proteomic challenges in the breast cancer study. METHODS: We performed a research of protein profiling studies using mass spectrometry in breast cancer to identify potential biomarkers. RESULTS: Many protein peaks have been reported to bear significant diagnostic, prognostic or predictive value; however, the candidate biomarkers have not been validated for use in clinical patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Proteomics is under development and, despite technical barriers that precede the use of proteomics analysis in clinical practice and breast cancer complexity, MALDI-TOF/SELDI-TOF MS proteomic platforms with their innovations are powerful analytical tools for the detection of better protein biomarkers, since the studies are conducted with adequate statistical power and analytical rigor. In the near future, they will be able to fulfill their role in personalized medicine.
Authors: Merideth C Kamradt; Meiling Lu; Michael E Werner; Toni Kwan; Feng Chen; Anne Strohecker; Shayna Oshita; John C Wilkinson; Chunjiang Yu; Patsy G Oliver; Colin S Duckett; Donald J Buchsbaum; Albert F LoBuglio; V Craig Jordan; Vincent L Cryns Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-01-14 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Jens K Habermann; Uwe J Roblick; Brian T Luke; Darue A Prieto; William J J Finlay; Vladimir N Podust; John M Roman; Elisabeth Oevermann; Thomas Schiedeck; Nils Homann; Michael Duchrow; Thomas P Conrads; Timothy D Veenstra; Stanley K Burt; Hans-Peter Bruch; Gert Auer; Thomas Ried Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: A T Ferguson; E Evron; C B Umbricht; T K Pandita; T A Chan; H Hermeking; J R Marks; A R Lambers; P A Futreal; M R Stampfer; S Sukumar Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2000-05-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Shahid Mian; Graham Ball; Jo Hornbuckle; Finn Holding; James Carmichael; Ian Ellis; Selman Ali; Geng Li; Stephanie McArdle; Colin Creaser; Robert Rees Journal: Proteomics Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Ulrik B Nielsen; Mike H Cardone; Anthony J Sinskey; Gavin MacBeath; Peter K Sorger Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-07-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: O E Tsitsilonis; E Bekris; I F Voutsas; C N Baxevanis; C Markopoulos; S A Papadopoulou; K Kontzoglou; S Stoeva; J Gogas; W Voelter; M Papamichail Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Berit Velstra; Yuri E M van der Burgt; Bart J Mertens; Wilma E Mesker; André M Deelder; Rob A E M Tollenaar Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 4.553