Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 467–475 | Cite as

Analysis of blood markers for early breast cancer diagnosis

  • J. Bayo
  • M. A. Castaño
  • F. Rivera
  • F. Navarro
Research Article



Breast cancer is the most common neoplasm in women and has the highest associated mortality rate. Rapid detection programmes can provide early diagnosis and increase the chances of survival. There are no specific tumor biomarkers for the early phase of the disease. The primary aim of this study was to search a blood biomarker with levels that exceeded the normal range established in the general population that could be used to screen breast cancer.


Case–control study. Conventional as well as research (NGAL, EGFR and 8-OHdG) tumor biomarkers were analyzed.


A total of 126 women were enrolled (cases: 63 patients with local breast cancer; Controls: 63 healthy women). Significant differences were found in patients with higher levels of the conventional markers, Ca15.3, CEA, Cyfra 21.1 and NSE. However, when commercial cut-off values were used, only Ca 15.13 was significant. In the group of research biomarkers, significantly higher levels of EGFR were found in the control group, and of 8-OHdG in the case group. Using logistic regression analysis and a ROC curve, an equation composed of five markers, Ca 15.3, NSE, NGAL, EGFR and 8-OHdG, which yielded a correct diagnostic probability of breast cancer of 91.8% was obtained.


8-OHdG has been identified as a new potential marker for screening early stage breast cancer. In addition, a model that combines five blood markers that can be used as a diagnostic test in certain groups of patients has been developed. New studies with a larger sample size are needed to verify the results obtained.


Serum tumor biomarkers Breast cancer Early diagnosis Oxidative stress 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Biomedical Research in Huelva (Spain). As previously indicated, all patients consent in writing to participate in the study. Annex (informed consent) includes both the information sheet and the informed consent completed by the participants. Researchers in the study kept confidentiality of the data of all the patients included in the study and ensured compliance with the law Organic Law 15/1999 on the Protection of Personal Data and any future regulation that legislates the confidentiality of the data. The information regarding the identity of the patients was considered to be confidential for all purposes. Data from the patients collected on the data collection sheet have been registered anonymously. Likewise, the database generated in the study, has been managed by the principal investigator of study and does contained personal identification data. During the course of this research, all documents related to the questionnaires have been located in a safe and locked area of the hospital.


  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11, Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2013., Accessed 5 May 2017.
  2. 2.
    Siu AL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:279–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, et al. Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:268–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty-five-year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g366.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:961–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brünner N, Chan DW, et al. National academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem. 2008;54:e11–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramsey SD, Henry NL, Gralow JR, Mirick DK, Barlow W, Etzioni R, et al. Tumor marker usage and medical care costs among older early stage breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2014;33:149–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thriveni K, Krishnamoorthy L, Ramaswamy G. Correlation study of carcino embryonic antigen & cancer antigen 15.3 in pretreated female breast cancer patients. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2007;22:57–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shao Y, Sun X, He Y, Liu C, Liu H. Elevated levels of serum tumor markers CEA and CA15-3 are prognostic parameters for different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133830.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molina R, Auge JM, Farrus B, Zanón G, Pahisa J, Muñoz M, et al. Prospective evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) in patients with primary locoregional breast cancer. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1148–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moazzezy N, Farahany TZ, Oloomi M, Bouzari S. Relationship between preoperative serum CA15-3 and CEA levels and clinicopathological parameters in breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:1685–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li H, Chen K, Su F, Song E, Gong C. Preoperative CA 15-3 levels predict the prognosis of nonmetastatic luminal A breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2014;189:48–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ali HQ, Mahdi NK, Al-Jowher MH. The value of CA15-3 in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment response in women with breast cancer. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63:1138–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu SG, He ZY, Zhou J, Sun JY, Li FY, Lin Q, et al. Serum levels of CEA and CA15-3 in different molecular subtypes and prognostic value in Chinese breast cancer. Breast. 2014;23:88–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mårtensson J, Bell M, Xu S, Bottai M, Ravn B, Venge P, et al. Association of plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) with sepsis and acute kidney dysfunction. Biomarkers. 2013;18:349–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wenners AS, Mehta K, Loibl S, Park H, Mueller B, Arnold N, et al. Neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL) predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and clinical outcome in primary human breast cancer. PLoS One. 2012;7:e45826.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tas F, Bilgin E, Karabulut S, Duranyildiz D. Clinical significance of serum epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) levels in patients with breast cancer. Cytokine. 2015;71:66–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pande D, Negi R, Karki K, Khanna S, Khanna RS, Khanna HD. Oxidative damage markers as possible discriminatory biomarkers in breast carcinoma. Transl Res. 2012;160:411–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valavanidis A, Vlachogianni T, Fiotakis C. 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine(8-OHdG): a critical biomarker of oxidative stress and carcinogenesis. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2009;27:120–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama. Proyecto El Álamo III. Encuesta de evolución de pacientes con cáncer de mama en hospitales del grupo GEICAM; 1998–2001. 2014. Accessed 15 Jan 2017.
  22. 22.
    Lumachi F, Basso SM, Brandes AA, Pagano D, Ermani M. Relationship between tumor markers CEA and CA 15–3, TNM staging, estrogen receptor rate and MIB-1 index in patients with pT1-2 breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:3221–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Asgeirsson KS, Agrawal A, Allen C, Hitch A, Ellis IO, Chapman C, et al. Serum epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2 expression in primary and metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li CI. Discovery and validation of breast cancer early detection biomarkers in preclinical samples. Horm Cancer. 2011;2:125–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):256–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oncology ServiceHuelva Hospital ComplexHuelvaSpain
  2. 2.Clinical Analysis ServiceHuelva Hospital ComplexHuelvaSpain
  3. 3.Behavioural Science Methodology AreaUniversity of HuelvaHuelvaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Integrated Sciences, Cell Biology, Faculty of Experimental SciencesUniversity of HuelvaHuelvaSpain

Personalised recommendations