American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer.

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 12/2007; 25(33):5287-312. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To update the recommendations for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast cancer.
For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full Panel was formed to complete the review and analysis of data published since 1999. Computerized literature searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were performed. The Update Committee's literature review focused attention on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published tumor marker studies. In general, significant health outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used for making recommendations. Recommendations and
Thirteen categories of breast tumor markers were considered, six of which were new for the guideline. The following categories showed evidence of clinical utility and were recommended for use in practice: CA 15-3, CA 27.29, carcinoembryonic antigen, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, urokinase plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and certain multiparameter gene expression assays. Not all applications for these markers were supported, however. The following categories demonstrated insufficient evidence to support routine use in clinical practice: DNA/ploidy by flow cytometry, p53, cathepsin D, cyclin E, proteomics, certain multiparameter assays, detection of bone marrow micrometastases, and circulating tumor cells.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is a critical note on the subject of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC). It takes into account the tumor identity of Circulating Tumor Cells as cancer seeds in transit from primary to secondary soils, rather than as a "biomarker", and considers the help this field could bring to cancer patients. It is not meant to duplicate information already available in a large number of reviews, but to stimulate considerations, further studies and development helping the clinical use of tumor cells isolated from blood as a modern personalized, non-invasive, predictive test to improve cancer patients' life. The analysis of CTC challenges, methodological bias and critical issues points out to the need of referring to tumor cells extracted from blood without any bias and identified by cytopathological diagnosis as Circulating Cancer Cells (CCC). Finally, this article highlights recent developments and identifies burning questions which should be addressed to improve our understanding of the domain of CCC and their potential to change the clinical practice.
    Cancer Microenvironment 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s12307-014-0164-4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To evaluate circulating cell-free DNA (CFD) measured by a simple fluorescent assay as a biomarker of breast cancer. Methods: We enrolled 38 patients with breast cancer before surgery, two patients with noncancerous breast lesions, nine patients after surgery, 16 healthy participants, and 29 control women admitted to the hospital emergency ward and released without hospitalization. CFD levels were measured by a direct fluorescence assay. Results: Presurgery patients with cancer had elevated CFD levels (1,010 ± 642 ng/mL), which were higher than those measured in the healthy control group (395 ± 248 ng/mL, P < .001), the noncancer breast lesion group (386 ± 40 ng/mL), the nonhospitalized control group (492 ± 193 ng/mL, P < .001), and the postsurgery cancer group (398 ± 162 ng/mL, P < .01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the presurgery vs healthy patient group was 0.83. CFD levels correlated with tumor size (P = .03, ρ = 0.36), nodal involvement (P = .0003, ρ = 0.56), and TNM stage (P = .0002, ρ = 0.56). All patients with axillary node involvement had a CFD value greater than 600 ng/mL. Conclusions: CFD measured using a simple fluorometric assay has shown good correlation to stage and enhanced sensitivity to locally advanced disease. A large prospective study is warranted to evaluate if inclusion of this method as a decisive marker before mammography is advantageous.
    American Journal of Clinical Pathology 01/2015; 143(1):18-24. DOI:10.1309/AJCPI5YHG0OGFAHM · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinicians have traditionally used clinicopathological (CP) factors to determine locoregional recurrence (LR) risk of breast cancer and have generated the IBTR! nomogram to predict the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay was recently correlated with LR in retrospective studies. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the RS and IBTR!. CP characteristics of 308 consecutive patients who underwent RS testing at our institution were examined. IBTR! was used to estimate the risk of 10-year IBTR. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the RS with the estimated IBTR!. Given a low event rate in this cohort, actual IBTR rates were not reported. Most patients had stage I/II (98%) and grade I/II (77%) disease. Median age was 54 years (range, 30-78). Median IBTR! without radiation therapy was 10% (mean, 12% [range, 4-43%]). RS was low (<18), intermediate (18-30), and high (>30) in 52% (n = 160), 40% (n = 123), and 8% (n = 25) patients. Overall, IBTR! did not correlate with RS (P = .77). We saw no correlation between RS and IBTR! in patients with less than (P = .32) or greater than (P = .48) a 10% risk of IBTR. Interestingly, Ki-67 expression correlated with both IBTR! (P = .019) and the RS (P = .002). Further study is warranted to determine if the RS can provide complementary biological information to CP factors in estimating the risk of LR. Prospective studies evaluating this association may potentially allow for individualized treatment decisions.
    SpringerPlus 01/2015; 4:36. DOI:10.1186/s40064-015-0840-y

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Sep 18, 2014