Esther A Peterson1, Shabana Shabbeer, Paraic A Kenny. 1. Department of Developmental and Molecular Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. esther.peterson@einstein.yu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prior to large studies in breast cancer patients, we have sought to establish the normal range of a potential serum biomarker, Amphiregulin, in healthy women and to determine whether sampling during the menstrual cycle influences the detected Amphiregulin levels. DESIGN AND METHODS: Serum Amphiregulin levels were quantified using a commercially available ELISA in 85 normal female donors. RESULTS: The range of circulating Amphiregulin was 0-4467 pg/mL. The majority of women had no detectable circulating Amphiregulin (n=54), and only five women had levels exceeding 500 pg/mL. Serum Amphiregulin levels did not vary significantly during the menstrual cycle (n=7 women). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of circulating Amphiregulin in a significant minority of healthy women suggests that it may not have the specificity necessary for a population screening tool; however its potential utility for monitoring response to treatment or disease progression should be examined in breast cancer cases.
OBJECTIVES: Prior to large studies in breast cancerpatients, we have sought to establish the normal range of a potential serum biomarker, Amphiregulin, in healthy women and to determine whether sampling during the menstrual cycle influences the detected Amphiregulin levels. DESIGN AND METHODS: Serum Amphiregulin levels were quantified using a commercially available ELISA in 85 normal female donors. RESULTS: The range of circulating Amphiregulin was 0-4467 pg/mL. The majority of women had no detectable circulating Amphiregulin (n=54), and only five women had levels exceeding 500 pg/mL. Serum Amphiregulin levels did not vary significantly during the menstrual cycle (n=7 women). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of circulating Amphiregulin in a significant minority of healthy women suggests that it may not have the specificity necessary for a population screening tool; however its potential utility for monitoring response to treatment or disease progression should be examined in breast cancer cases.
Authors: Frank M Biro; Susan M Pinney; Richard C Schwartz; Bin Huang; Ashley M Cattran; Sandra Z Haslam Journal: J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 1.814
Authors: Esther A Peterson; Edmund C Jenkins; Kristopher A Lofgren; Natasha Chandiramani; Hui Liu; Evelyn Aranda; Maryia Barnett; Paraic A Kenny Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Esther A Peterson; Eirini Pectasides; Shabana Shabbeer; Lisa Wiechmann; Joseph A Sparano; Paraic A Kenny Journal: Exp Hematol Oncol Date: 2013-09-08
Authors: Mahmood Yaseen Hachim; Noha Mousaad Elemam; Rakhee K Ramakrishnan; Laila Salameh; Ronald Olivenstein; Ibrahim Yaseen Hachim; Thenmozhi Venkatachalam; Bassam Mahboub; Saba Al Heialy; Rabih Halwani; Qutayba Hamid; Rifat Hamoudi Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-10-29