Literature DB >> 35084623

Diagnostic performance improvement with combined use of proteomics biomarker assay and breast ultrasound.

Su Min Ha1, Hong-Kyu Kim2, Yumi Kim2,3, Dong-Young Noh2,3, Wonshik Han2,4, Jung Min Chang5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the combined use of blood-based 3-protein signature and breast ultrasound (US) for validating US-detected lesions.
METHODS: From July 2011 to April 2020, women who underwent whole-breast US within at least 6 months from sampling period were retrospectively included. Blood-based 3-protein signature (Mastocheck®) value and US findings were evaluated. Following outcome measures were compared between US alone and the combination of Mastocheck® value with US: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and biopsy rate.
RESULTS: Among the 237 women included, 59 (24.9%) were healthy individuals and 178 (75.1%) cancer patients. Mean size of cancers was 1.2 ± 0.8 cm. Median value of Mastocheck® was significantly different between nonmalignant (- 0.24, interquartile range [IQR] - 0.48, - 0.03) and malignant lesions (0.55, IQR - 0.03, 1.42) (P < .001). Utilizing Mastocheck® value with US increased the AUC from 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61, 0.73) to 0.81 (95% CI 0.75, 0.88; P < .001), and specificity from 35.6 (95% CI 23.4, 47.8) to 64.4% (95% CI 52.2, 76.6; P < .001) without loss in sensitivity. PPV was increased from 82.2 (95% CI 77.1, 87.3) to 89.3% (95% CI 85.0, 93.6; P < .001), and biopsy rate was significantly decreased from 79.3 (188/237) to 72.1% (171/237) (P < .001). Consistent improvements in specificity, PPV, and AUC were observed in asymptomatic women, in women with dense breast, and in those with normal/benign mammographic findings.
CONCLUSION: Mastocheck® is an effective tool that can be used with US to improve diagnostic specificity and reduce false-positive findings and unnecessary biopsies.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomarkers; Blood proteins; Breast cancer; Diagnosis; Proteomics; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35084623     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06527-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  35 in total

Review 1.  Imaging of breast masses.

Authors:  L W Bassett
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts.

Authors:  V Corsetti; A Ferrari; M Ghirardi; R Bergonzini; S Bellarosa; O Angelini; C Bani; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.

Authors:  S S Kaplan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Ultrasound screening of breast cancer.

Authors:  Eriko Tohno; Ei Ueno; Hiroshi Watanabe
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 4.239

9.  The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening.

Authors:  László Tabár; Peter B Dean; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; May Mei-Sheng Ku; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Chen-Yang Hsu; Yu-Ching Chen; Kerri Beckmann; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; László Tabár; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Peter B Dean; Robert A Smith; Håkan Jonsson; Sven Törnberg; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; May Mei-Sheng Ku; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Chen-Yang Hsu; Yu-Ching Chen; Gunilla Svane; Edward Azavedo; Helene Grundström; Per Sundén; Karin Leifland; Ewa Frodis; Joakim Ramos; Birgitta Epstein; Anders Åkerlund; Ann Sundbom; Pál Bordás; Hans Wallin; Leena Starck; Annika Björkgren; Stina Carlson; Irma Fredriksson; Johan Ahlgren; Daniel Öhman; Lars Holmberg; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.