nach oben

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Erschienen in:

27.01.2022 | Clinical trial

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

verfasst von: Su Min Ha, Hong-Kyu Kim, Yumi Kim, Dong-Young Noh, Wonshik Han, Jung Min Chang

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 3/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Duffy SW, Tabár L, Yen AM, Dean PB, Smith RA, Jonsson H, Törnberg S, Chen SL, Chiu SY, Fann JC, Ku MM, Wu WY, Hsu CY, Chen YC, Svane G, Azavedo E, Grundström H, Sundén P, Leifland K, Frodis E, Ramos J, Epstein B, Åkerlund A, Sundbom A, Bordás P, Wallin H, Starck L, Björkgren A, Carlson S, Fredriksson I, Ahlgren J, Öhman D, Holmberg L, Chen TH (2020) Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: results in 549,091 women. Cancer 126:2971–2979. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32859CrossRefPubMed

Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen TH, Yen AM, Chen SL, Fann JC, Chiu SY, Ku MM, Wu WY, Hsu CY, Chen YC, Beckmann K, Smith RA, Duffy SW (2019) The incidence of fatal breast cancer measures the increased effectiveness of therapy in women participating in mammography screening. Cancer 125:515–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31840CrossRefPubMed

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081CrossRefPubMed

Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.1.1810177CrossRefPubMed

Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2213010364CrossRefPubMed

Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) 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. Radiology 225:165–175. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667CrossRefPubMed

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, Pisano ED, Jong RA, Evans WP, Morton MJ, Mahoney MC, Larsen LH, Barr RG, Farria DM, Marques HS, Boparai K (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.18.2151CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, Bani C, Ciatto S (2006) Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 111:440–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-006-0040-5CrossRefPubMed

Tohno E, Ueno E, Watanabe H (2009) Ultrasound screening of breast cancer. Breast Cancer 16:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-008-0082-8CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bassett LW (2000) Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am 38:669–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-8389(05)70193-7CrossRefPubMed

11.

Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, Satija S, Yeh ED, McCarthy KA, Hall D, Staffa M, Rafferty EA, Halpern E, Kopans DB (2002) Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 225:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251010999CrossRefPubMed

12.

Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, Aucreman CJ, Cardenosa G, Cink TM, Coscia JL Jr, Eklund GW, Evans WP 3rd, Garver PR et al (1994) Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 193:359–364. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.193.2.7972743CrossRefPubMed

13.

Berg WA (2016) Current status of supplemental screening in dense breasts. J Clin Oncol 34:1840–1843. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.65.8674CrossRefPubMed

14.

Berg WA (2004) Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 42:845–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2004.04.003CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lee JM, Arao RF, Sprague BL, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Smith RA, Henderson LM, Rauscher GH, Miglioretti DL (2019) Performance of screening ultrasonography as an adjunct to screening mammography in women across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMA Intern Med 179:658–667. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8372CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, Bani C, Sardo P, Remida G, Galligioni E, Ciatto S (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.01.009CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Lee CI, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Tosteson AN (2015) Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 162:157–166. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-0692CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Weigert JM (2017) The connecticut experiment; the third installment: 4 years of screening women with dense breasts with bilateral ultrasound. Breast J 23:34–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12678CrossRefPubMed

19.

Underwood JJ, Quadri RS, Kalva SP, Shah H, Sanjeevaiah AR, Beg MS, Sutphin PD (2020) Liquid biopsy for cancer: review and implications for the radiologist. Radiology 294:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182584CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ziegler A, Zangemeister-Wittke U, Stahel RA (2002) Circulating DNA: a new diagnostic gold mine? Cancer Treat Rev 28:255–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-7372(02)00077-4CrossRefPubMed

21.

Tay TKY, Tan PH (2020) Liquid biopsy in breast cancer: a focused review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 145:678–686. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2019-0559-RACrossRef

22.

Alimirzaie S, Bagherzadeh M, Akbari MR (2019) Liquid biopsy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review. Clin Genet 95:643–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13514CrossRefPubMed

23.

Loke SY, Lee ASG (2018) The future of blood-based biomarkers for the early detection of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 92:54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.12.025CrossRef

24.

Thierry AR, El Messaoudi S, Gahan PB, Anker P, Stroun M (2016) Origins, structures, and functions of circulating DNA in oncology. Cancer Metastasis Rev 35:347–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-016-9629-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Chen L, Bode AM, Dong Z (2017) Circulating tumor cells: moving biological insights into detection. Theranostics 7:2606–2619. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18588CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Li J, Guan X, Fan Z, Ching LM, Li Y, Wang X, Cao WM, Liu DX (2020) Non-invasive biomarkers for early detection of breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12102767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Cohen JD, Li L, Wang Y, Thoburn C, Afsari B, Danilova L, Douville C, Javed AA, Wong F, Mattox A, Hruban RH, Wolfgang CL, Goggins MG, Dal Molin M, Wang TL, Roden R, Klein AP, Ptak J, Dobbyn L, Schaefer J, Silliman N, Popoli M, Vogelstein JT, Browne JD, Schoen RE, Brand RE, Tie J, Gibbs P, Wong HL, Mansfield AS, Jen J, Hanash SM, Falconi M, Allen PJ, Zhou S, Bettegowda C, Diaz LA Jr, Tomasetti C, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Lennon AM, Papadopoulos N (2018) Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science 359:926–930. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Duffy MJ (2006) Serum tumor markers in breast cancer: are they of clinical value? Clin Chem 52:345–351. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.059832CrossRefPubMed

29.

Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast RC Jr (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.14.2364CrossRef

30.

Kazarian A, Blyuss O, Metodieva G, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Kiseleva EM, Prytomanova OM, Jacobs IJ, Widschwendter M, Menon U, Timms JF (2017) Testing breast cancer serum biomarkers for early detection and prognosis in pre-diagnosis samples. Br J Cancer 116:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Kim Y, Kang UB, Kim S, Lee HB, Moon HG, Han W, Noh DY (2019) A validation study of a multiple reaction monitoring-based proteomic assay to diagnose breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 22:579–586. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2019.22.e57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Kim Y, Moon H-G, Lee H-B, Moon WK, Cho N, Chang J-M, Han W, Noh D-Y (2019) Efficacy of Mastocheck for screening of early breast cancer: comparison with screening mammography. J Breast Dis 7:59–64. https://doi.org/10.14449/jbd.2019.7.2.59CrossRef

33.

Lee HB, Kang UB, Moon HG, Lee J, Lee KM, Yi M, Park YS, Lee JW, Yu JH, Choi SH, Cho SH, Lee C, Han W, Noh DY (2015) Development and validation of a novel plasma protein signature for breast cancer diagnosis by using multiple reaction monitoring-based mass spectrometry. Anticancer Res 35:6271–6279PubMed

34.

Mendelson EBB-VM, Berg WA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS ultrasound. ACR BIRADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

35.

Kang UB, Ahn Y, Lee JW, Kim YH, Kim J, Yu MH, Noh DY, Lee C (2010) Differential profiling of breast cancer plasma proteome by isotope-coded affinity tagging method reveals biotinidase as a breast cancer biomarker. BMC Cancer 10:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRef

37.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRef

38.

Lee SH, Chung J, Choi HY, Choi SH, Ryu EB, Ko KH, Koo HR, Park JS, Yi A, Youk JH, Son EJ, Chu AJ, Chang JM, Cho N, Jang MJ, Kook SH, Cha ES, Moon WK (2017) Evaluation of screening US-detected breast masses by combined use of elastography and color doppler US with B-mode US in women with dense breasts: a multicenter prospective study. Radiology 285:660–669. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162424CrossRefPubMed

39.

Barr RG (2019) Future of breast elastography. Ultrasonography 38:93–105. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.18053CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Choi JS, Han BK, Ko ES, Bae JM, Ko EY, Song SH, Kwon MR, Shin JH, Hahn SY (2019) Effect of a deep learning framework-based computer-aided diagnosis system on the diagnostic performance of radiologists in differentiating between malignant and benign masses on breast ultrasonography. Korean J Radiol 20:749–758. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0530CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Choi JH, Kang BJ, Baek JE, Lee HS, Kim SH (2018) Application of computer-aided diagnosis in breast ultrasound interpretation: improvements in diagnostic performance according to reader experience. Ultrasonography 37:217–225. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17046CrossRefPubMed

42.

Kim S, Choi Y, Kim E, Han BK, Yoon JH, Choi JS, Chang JM (2021) Deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis in screening breast ultrasound to reduce false-positive diagnoses. Sci Rep 11:395. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79880-0CrossRefPubMedCentral

43.

Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ 309:102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Diagnostic performance improvement with combined use of proteomics biomarker assay and breast ultrasound
verfasst von: Su Min Ha
Hong-Kyu Kim
Yumi Kim
Dong-Young Noh
Wonshik Han
Jung Min Chang
Publikationsdatum: 27.01.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06527-1

Concurrent chemo-endocrine treatment for early hormone-positive breast cancer: a no-go???

Review

Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme 2C (UBE2C) is a poor prognostic biomarker in invasive breast cancer

Open Access
Preclinical study

Utility of Oncotype DX score in clinical management for T1 estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative, and lymph node negative breast cancer

Preclinical study

Afatinib alone and in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel, in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who failed or progressed on prior trastuzumab and/or lapatinib (LUX-Breast 2): an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial

Open Access
Clinical trial

The effect of emotional disorders on adherence to mammography screening guidelines

Epidemiology

Nanoparticle-assisted axillary staging: an alternative approach after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pretreatment node-positive breast cancers

Clinical trial

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

CDK4/6-Inhibitoren bei Brustkrebs in die Zweitlinie aufschieben?

10.01.2025
Mammakarzinom
Nachrichten

Ergebnisse einer Phase-III-Studie sprechen dafür, dass die Behandlung mit CDK4/6-Inhibitoren bei fortgeschrittenem HR-positivem, HER2-negativem Brustkrebs auch auf die Zweitlinie verschoben werden könnte, ohne die onkologischen Ergebnisse zu kompromittieren.

Cannabisextrakt verbessert Antiemese bei Chemotherapie

10.01.2025
Antiemetische Therapie
Nachrichten

Sprechen Krebskranke auf die übliche Antiemese während einer Chemotherapie nicht ausreichend an, lohnt sich möglicherweise eine Behandlung mit Cannabisextrakt. In einer Phase-2/3-Studie ließ sich die antiemetische Response mit einem solchen Extrakt erheblich verbessern.

Veränderung der Brustdichte beeinflusst das Krebsrisiko

08.01.2025
Mammakarzinom
Nachrichten

Die radiologische Dichte des Mammagewebes ist mit dem Risiko assoziiert, an Brustkrebs zu erkranken. Dabei wirken sich laut Ergebnissen einer Studie auch Dichteänderungen aus. Fünf Verlaufsmuster lassen sich dabei unterscheiden.

PMBCL mit CMR: Radiatio kann ohne Risiko weggelassen werden

08.01.2025
Non-Hodgkin-Lymphome
Nachrichten

Patienten mit primär mediastinalem B-Zell-Lymphom (PMBCL), die nach der Induktionstherapie eine komplette metabolische Remission (CMR) erreichen und keine konsolidierende Bestrahlung erhalten, müssen offenbar keine Überlebensnachteile fürchten.

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

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