Biomarkers Expression in Women with Infiltrating Ductal Carcinoma Breast Cancer

Maha Ahmed  Hmoud; Shallaw Najmuldeen Jalal

doi:10.51699/c9649b48

Authors

Maha Ahmed Hmoud Kirkuk Health Authority, Kirkuk, Iraq
Shallaw Najmuldeen Jalal Kirkuk Health Authority, Kirkuk, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51699/c9649b48

Keywords:

Breast Cancer, Demography, CA15-3, ER, PR, HER2

Abstract

Background breast cancer is a heterogeneous, challenging disease. It is the most frequent cancer found in women in the Middle East. Objective to identify women who are at high risk for breast cancer and find the relationship between breast cancer development and breast cancer markers. This helps provide insight into some breast cancer screening tests and make some suggestions about such tests. Methods: 79 women with breast cancer and 79 controls were included in this study. All patients and control serum samples were subjected to determination CA15-3. Tissue samples were collected as FFPE blocks, and all tissue samples were tested to evaluate the expression of ER, PR, and HER2/neu. Results: Breast cancer in our study was predominant in the age group of 41-50 years, while the lowest frequency was in the age group of 71-80 years. ROC AUC indicated a significant association between breast cancer and some variables such as residence, delivery method, and family history of breast cancer, relative degree, abortion number, mastectomy site, marital status, family member, child number, and breastfeeding. Both ER and PR (positivity rate and cell numbers) were with significant predictive values with grade I and grade III breast cancer. While HER-2 was with significant predictive value in breast cancer with grade III and grade IV. CA15-3 mean serum level was higher in breast cancer as compared to control group, increasing gradually with cancer grade and higher in women aged <35 years .ER and PR-positive breast cancer were found in 64.6% of cases, with significant differences between grades of breast cancer. While HER2-positive breast cancer was 26.6%. The mean CA15-3 values were significantly higher in ER, PR, and HER2-positive breast cancer. Conclusion: Residence, delivery method, family history of breast cancer, relative degree, abortion number, mastectomy site, marital status, family member and breastfeeding are significant associations with breast cancer in our studied cohort. About 2/3 of breast cancer cases are ER and PR positive and this may influence the therapeutic approach of breast cancer cases. Fortunately, 1/4 of cases are HER2 positive as they are with poor prognosis.ER, PR, HER2, and CA15-3 markers may be important guides in breast cancer therapy.

References

[1] C. Fitzmaurice et al., “The global burden of cancer 2013,” JAMA Oncol, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 505–527, 2015.

[2] C. E. DeSantis, F. Bray, J. Ferlay, J. Lortet-Tieulent, B. O. Anderson, and A. Jemal, “International variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality rates,” Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1495–1506, 2015.

[3] M. J. Merino, “Breast,” Gattuso’s Differential Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology, vol. 419, pp. 721–762, 2021, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-66165-2.00013-2.

[4] C. Mattiuzzi and G. Lippi, “Current cancer epidemiology,” J Epidemiol Glob Health, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 217, 2019.

[5] N. Harbeck et al., “Cardoso,” Breast cancer. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers, vol. 5, p. 66, 2019.

[6] J. Li et al., “Tumor markers CA15-3, CA125, CEA and breast cancer survival by molecular subtype: a cohort study,” Breast Cancer, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 621–630, 2020.

[7] L. Harris et al., “American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer,” Journal of clinical oncology, vol. 25, no. 33, pp. 5287–5312, 2007.

[8] S. Nath and P. Mukherjee, “MUC1: a multifaceted oncoprotein with a key role in cancer progression,” Trends Mol Med, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 332–342, 2014.

[9] M. A. Hollingsworth and B. J. Swanson, “Mucins in cancer: protection and control of the cell surface,” Nat Rev Cancer, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–60, 2004.

[10] P. Marić, P. Ozretić, S. Levanat, S. Orešković, K. Antunac, and L. Beketić-Orešković, “Tumor markers in breast cancer–evaluation of their clinical usefulness,” Coll Antropol, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 241–247, 2011.

[11] A. K. Agrawal et al., “The importance of preoperative elevated serum levels of CEA and CA15-3 in patients with breast cancer in predicting its histological type.,” Folia Histochem Cytobiol, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 26–29, 2010.

[12] Z. M. Hashim, “The significance of CA15-3 in breast cancer patients and its relationship to HER-2 receptor status,” Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 45–51, 2014.

[13] M. O. Tarhan et al., “Prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells and serum CA15-3 levels in metastatic breast cancer, single center experience, preliminary results,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1725–1729, 2013.

[14] C. Thiebaut, V. Vlaeminck-Guillem, O. Trédan, C. Poulard, and M. Le Romancer, “Non-genomic signaling of steroid receptors in cancer,” Mol Cell Endocrinol, vol. 538, p. 111453, 2021.

[15] S. F. Marshall et al., “Recent breast cancer incidence trends according to hormone therapy use: the California Teachers Study cohort,” Breast Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2010.

[16] B. Abderrahman and V. C. Jordan, “Steroid receptors in breast cancer,” in The Breast, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 272–281.

[17] T. P. J. Garrett et al., “The crystal structure of a truncated ErbB2 ectodomain reveals an active conformation, poised to interact with other ErbB receptors,” Mol Cell, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 495–505, 2003.

[18] J. Ursini-Siegel, B. Schade, R. D. Cardiff, and W. J. Muller, “Insights from transgenic mouse models of ERBB2-induced breast cancer,” Nat Rev Cancer, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 389–397, 2007.

[19] X. Dai, L. Xiang, T. Li, and Z. Bai, “Cancer hallmarks, biomarkers and breast cancer molecular subtypes,” J Cancer, vol. 7, no. 10, p. 1281, 2016.

[20] C. Denkert, C. Liedtke, A. Tutt, and G. von Minckwitz, “Molecular alterations in triple-negative breast cancer—the road to new treatment strategies,” The Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10087, pp. 2430–2442, 2017.

[21] D. C. Allred, J. M. Harvey, M. Berardo, and G. M. Clark, “Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis.,” Mod Pathol, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 155–168, 1998.

[22] I. O. Ellis et al., “Pathology reporting of breast disease,” NHS publication, no. 58, 2005.

[23] A. Shah et al., “Correlation between age and hormone receptor status in women with breast cancer,” Cureus, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022.

[24] F. Song et al., “ER-positive breast cancer patients with more than three positive nodes or grade 3 tumors are at high risk of late recurrence after 5-year adjuvant endocrine therapy,” Onco Targets Ther, vol. 10, p. 4859, 2017.

[25] J. Salmen et al., “Pooled analysis of the prognostic relevance of progesterone receptor status in five German cohort studies,” Breast Cancer Res Treat, vol. 148, no. 1, pp. 143–151, 2014.

[26] S. Abdullah, “Risk Assessment for Epstein-Barr and Cytomegalovirus Virus Infection in Women with Breast cancer,” Tikreet University, 2016.

[27] V. Özmen, T. Özmen, and V. Doğru, “Breast cancer in Turkey an analysis of 20.000 patients with breast cancer,” Eur J Breast Health, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 141, 2019.

[28] W. S. Alqahtani et al., “Epidemiology of cancer in Saudi Arabia thru 2010–2019: a systematic review with constrained meta-analysis,” AIMS Public Health, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 679, 2020.

[29] A. H. A. Alobaidi, A. Jalaly, A. G. M. Alsamarai, and H. H. Sarhan, “Biomarkers in women with breast cancer: I: CEA, CA 15.3, CA 27-29, BRCA1, and BRCA2 predictive value,” International J Scientific Research Science Engineering Technology, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 442–449, 2015.

[30] Y. Fu and H. Li, “Assessing clinical significance of serum CA15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis,” Med Sci Monit, vol. 22, p. 3154, 2016.

[31] A. H. A. Alobaidi, A. Jalaly, A. G. M. Alsamarai, and H. H. Sarhan, “Biomarkers in women with breast cancer: II,” Hormones, calcium, vit D, glucose, and IGF predictive value. World J Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 74–100, 2015.

[32] A. Hoti, E. Gashi, F. Kraja, and A. Sallaku, “Association of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) with socio-demographic factors and metastases site in women with metastatic breast cancer in Albania,” South Eastern European Journal of Public Health (SEEJPH), 2018.

[33] S. Khorrami, M. Tavakoli, and E. Safari, “Clinical value of serum S100A8/A9 and CA15-3 in the diagnosis of breast cancer,” Iran J Pathol, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 104, 2019.

[34] X. Li, D. Dai, B. Chen, H. Tang, X. Xie, and W. Wei, “Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of cancer antigen 15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in breast cancer: a meta-analysis including 12,993 patients,” Dis Markers, vol. 2018, 2018.

[35] M. Kotzsch et al., “Inverse association of rab31 and mucin-1 (CA15-3) antigen levels in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer tissues with clinicopathological parameters and patients’ prognosis,” Am J Cancer Res, vol. 7, no. 9, p. 1959, 2017.

[36] G. Wang et al., “Nipple discharge of CA15-3, CA125, CEA and TSGF as a new biomarker panel for breast cancer,” Int J Mol Sci, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 9546–9565, 2014.

[37] S. Poureghbali, A. Monsef Esfahani, and M. Jafari, “CORRELATION OF SERUM HER2-NEU, CA15-3 AND CEA IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS AND TNM STAGING,” Studies in Medical Sciences, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 513–518, 2015.