Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:57:14.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significance of serum vascular endothelial growth factor and cancer antigen 15.3 in patients with triple negative breast cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2013

Priyanka Chanana ,
Awadesh Kumar Pandey ,
Budhi Singh Yadav ,
Jasbinder Kaur ,
Seema Singla ,
Kislay Dimri ,
Romeeta Trehan  and
Pawan Krishan
Priyanka Chanana
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences & Drug Research, Punjabi University, Patiala, India
Awadesh Kumar Pandey
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
Budhi Singh Yadav*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India
Jasbinder Kaur
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
Seema Singla
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
Kislay Dimri
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
Romeeta Trehan
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
Pawan Krishan
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences & Drug Research, Punjabi University, Patiala, India
*
Correspondence to: Dr Budhi Singh Yadav, Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector–12, Chandigarh, India. Tel: +91 981 598 1176. E-mail: drbudhi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

A pilot study was undertaken to find significance of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and cancer antigen (CA 15.3) in breast cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Total 70 patients with breast cancer were divided into triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC depending on oestrogen receptors, progesterone receptors or HER-2/neu receptors status. Serum CA 15.3 and VEGF levels were evaluated with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at the time of diagnosis and were correlated with age, tumour size and stage of the disease in both the groups. Spearman's test was used to find the correlation.

Results

VEGF levels were found to be >400 pg/ml in 27 patients, 19 (54·33%) of them were TNBC and only 8 (22·87%) non-TNBC. Mean values of the VEGF were, 784·34 pg/ml in TNBC and 334·60 pg/ml non-TNBC patients, respectively. CA 15.3 level was found to be higher in non-TNBC group (60·72 U/ml) than in TNBC group (45·24 U/ml). In all patients significant correlation was found between serum CA 15.3 level and tumour size and stage of the disease. In non-TNBC patients significant correlation was seen between CA 15.3 values and stage of the disease, but VEGF had no correlation with any of the disease parameters. In TNBC patients, there was no correlation between CA 15.3 level and any of the disease parameters but VEGF showed a significant correlation with both tumour size and stage of the disease.

Conclusion

Expression profile of VEGF was high in TNBC than non-TNBC patients. VEGF serves to be a better biomarker as compared with CA 15.3 in TNBC patients.

Keywords

breast cancerCA 15.3TNBCtumour markersVEGF
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 60 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Dent, R, Trudeau, M, Pritchard, K Iet al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13: 4429–4434.Google Scholar
2.Kreike, B, Van Kouwenhove, M, Horlings, Het al. Gene expression profiling and histopathological characterization of triple-negative/basallike breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res 2007; 9: R65.Google Scholar
3.Livasy, C A, Karaca, C, Nanda, Ret al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2006; 19: 264–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Foulkes, W D, Smith, I E, Reis-Filho, J S. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1938–1948.Google Scholar
5.Cleator, S, Heller, W, Coombes, R C. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Irwin, W J Jr, Carey, L A. What is triple negative breast cancer. Eur J Vancer 2008; 44: 2799–2805.Google Scholar
7.Stockmans, G, Deraedt, K, Wildiers, Het al. Triple negative breast cancer. Curr Opin.Oncol. 2008; 20: 614–620.Google Scholar
8.Reis-Filho, J S, Tutt, A N. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology 2008; 52: 108–118.Google Scholar
9.Diaz, L K, Cryns, V L, Symmans, F, Sneige, N. Triple negative breast carcinoma and the basal phenotype: from expression profiling to clinical practice. Adv Anat Pathol 2007; 14: 419–430.Google Scholar
10.Perou, C M, Sørlie, T, Eisen, M Bet al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406 (6797): 747–752.Google Scholar
11.Patil, V W, Singhai, R, Patil, A Vet al. Triple-negative (ER, PgR, HER 2/neu) breast cancer in Indian women. Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2011; 3: 9–19.Google Scholar
12.Longacre, T A, Bartow, S A. A correlative morphologic study of human breast and endometrium in the menstrual cycle. Am J Surg Pathol 1986; 10: 382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Rodriguez-Pinilla, S M, Sarrio, D, Honrado, Eet al. Prognostic significance of basal-like phenotype and fascin expression in nodenegative invasive breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 1533–1539.Google Scholar
14.Liedtke, C, Mazouni, C, Hess, K Ret al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1275–1281.Google Scholar
15.Hayes, D F, Thor, A D, Dressler, L Get al. HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1496–1506.Google Scholar
16.Kassam, F, Enright, K, Dent, Ret al. Survival outcomes for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: implications for clinical practice and trial design. Clin Breast Cancer 2009; 9: 29–33.Google Scholar
17.Roche, H, Li, R, Ro, Jet al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine improves progression free survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to taxanes: a pooled analysis from two phase III trials. Poster presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS), 10–14 Dec 2008 (Abstr 2015), San Antonio, TX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Farmer, H, McCabe, N, Lord, C Jet al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA1 mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005; 434: 917–921.Google Scholar
19.Garber, J F, Richardson, A, Harris, L N. Neo-adjuvant cisplatin (CDDP) in ‘triple negative’ breast cancer (BC) [abstract 308]. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 100 (suppl 1, Abstract 308 S32.Google Scholar
20.Duffy, M J, Duggan, C, Keane, Ret al. High preoperative CA 15-3 concentrations predict adverse outcome in node-negative and node-positive breast cancer: study of 600 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer. Clin Chem 2004; 50: 3559–3563.Google Scholar
21.Taha, F M, Zeeneldin, A A, Amani, Met al. Prognostic value of serum vascular endothelial growth factor in Egyptian females with metastatic triple negative breast cancer. Clin Biochem 2009; 42: 1420–1426.Google Scholar
22.Khafagy, W, Aref, S, Zalata, K. Association of serum vascular endothelial growth factor level with estrogen receptors status in breast cancer patients. Egypt J Surg 2005; 24 (4): 188–194.Google Scholar
23.Heer, K, Kumar, H, Speirs, Vet al. Preoperative serum VEGF in primary breast cancer patients – its relation with oestrogen receptor status and cancer type. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34 (5): S29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Derya, D, Hakan, C, Hilal, S O, Duygu, D, Vidan, Y. Serum levels of angiogenic factors in early breast cancer remain close to normal. The Breast 2009; 18: 26–29.Google Scholar
25.Linderholm, B K, Helborg, H, Johansson, Uet al. Significantly higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and shorter survival times for patients with primary operable triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1639–1646.Google Scholar
26.Verheul, H M, Pinedo, H M. The importance of platelet counts and their contents in cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 7: 3219–3221.Google Scholar
27.Wynendaele, W, Derua, R, Hoylaerts, M Fet al. Vascular endothelial growth factor measured in platelet poor plasma allows optimal separation between cancer patients and volunteers: a key to study an angiogenic marker in vivo? Ann Oncol 1999; 10: 965–971.Google Scholar
28.Lee, J K, Hong, Y J, Han, C Jet al. Clinical usefulness of serum and plasma vascular endothelial growth factor in cancer patients: which is the optimal specimen? Int J Oncol 2000; 17: 149–152.Google Scholar
29.Park, B W, Oh, J W, Kim, J Het al. Preoperative CA 15-3 and CEA serum levels as predictor for breast cancer outcomes. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 675–681.Google Scholar
30.Martin, A, Corte, D, Alvarez, A Met al. Prognostic value of pre-operative serum CA 15.3 levels in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2006; 26: 3965–3972.Google Scholar
31.Velaiutham, S, Taib, N A, Ng, K L, Yoong, B K, Yip, C H. Does the pre-operative value of serum CA15-3 correlate with survival in breast cancer? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2008; 9: 445–448.Google Scholar
32.Agrawal, A K, Jelen, M, Rudnicki, Jet al. The importance of preoperative elevated serum levels of CEA and CA15-3 in patients with breast cancer in predicting its histological type. Folia Histochemica et Cytobiologica 2010; 48 (1): 26–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Berruti, A, Tampelllini, M, Torta, Met al. Prognostic value in predicting overall survival of two mucinous markers; CA 15.3 and CA 125 in breast cancer patients at first relapse of disease. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 2082–2084.Google Scholar
34.Laessig, D, Nagel, D, Heinemann, Vet al. Importance of CEA and CA 15-3 during disease progression in metastatic breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res 2007; 27: 1963–1968.Google Scholar
35.Ferrero, S, Nicoletti, A, Ragni, N. Letter to the editor: measurement of serum vascular endothelial growth factor in breast cancer patients. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Inai, T, Mancuso, M, Hashizume, Het al. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in cancer causes loss of endothelial fenestrations, regression of tumor vessels, and appearance of basement membrane ghosts. Am J Pathol 2004; 165: 35–52.Google Scholar
37.Jain, R K. Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science 2005; 307: 58–62.Google Scholar
38.Diaz, L K, Cryns, V L, Symmans, F, Sneige, N. Triple negative breast carcinoma and the basal phenotype: from expression profiling to clinical practice. Adv Anat Pathol 2007; 14: 419–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Miller, K, Wang, M, Gralow, Jet al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2666–2676.Google Scholar