Tumor Biology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 2371–2377 | Cite as

Serum tumour markers as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in Libyan breast cancer

  • Mohamed Elfagieh
  • Fathi Abdalla
  • Asma Gliwan
  • Jamela Boder
  • Wafa Nichols
  • Abdelbaset Buhmeida
Research Article

Abstract

Results from studies on efficacy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (CA 15.3) and thymidine kinase (TK1) as diagnostic and prognostic tools for primary breast cancer (BC) have presented conflicting results, and usefulness of these markers for clinical use in BC remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate potential of concentration of the sera CEA, CA15.3 and TK1 peptides’ use as markers in the diagnosis and prognosis of breast lesions of Libyan patients. Serum tumour markers were studied in 20 healthy subjects, 30 patient with benign lesion diseases and 50 patients with histologically confirmed BC diagnosed at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Misurata, Libya during the period 2005–2009. The concentrations of the BC patients’ cutoff points used for diagnostic and prognostic sensitivity were 8.82 ng/ml, 35.57 U/ml and 32.57 U/mg/protein for CEA, CA15.3 and TK1, respectively. Increased CEA (>8.82 ng/ml), CA 15.3 (>35.57 U/ml) and TK1 (>32.57 U/mg/protein) concentrations were found in 62 %, 70 % and 78 % of the BC patients, respectively. For all three tumour markers, increased concentrations correlated increased tumour size and nodal involvement. Significantly higher serum TK1 levels were found in patients with advanced disease (p < 0.0001) and TK1 levels also correlated with disease-specific survival (DSS, p < 0.07). The combined data set of the three markers’ data from three markers increased the diagnostic sensitivity to 90 %. The serum marker analysis for CEA, CA 15.3, and S-TK1 concentrations is shown to be a useful tool for identification of malignant cases in our BC population and for the prognostic evaluation of patients with primary BC. Increased concentrations of the markers were also observed to be higher in patients with advanced tumours and indicative of the development of distant metastasis.

Keywords

Tumour markers Libyan breast cancer Diagnosis Prognosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the medical and registry staff, the National Cancer Institute of Misurata for help in collecting data.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Fernandez LM. Use of statistics to assess the global burden of breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12 Suppl 1:S70–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, Forbes J, Mallon EA, Salter J, Quinn E, Dunbier A, Baum M, Buzdar A, Howell A, Bugarini R, Baehner FL, Shak S. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a transatac study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1829–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harbeck N, Thomssen C. A new look at node-negative breast cancer. Oncologist. 2010;15 Suppl 5:29–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Group. EBCTC. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horton SJ, Franz A. Mechanical diagnosis and therapy approach to assessment and treatment of derangement of the sacro-iliac joint. Man Ther. 2007;12:126–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bieglmayer C, Szepesi T, Kopp B, Hoffmann G, Petrik W, Guettuoche K, Grundler S, Gregorits M, Strasser M. Ca15.3, mca, cam26, cam29 are members of a polymorphic family of mucin-like glycoproteins. Tumour Biol. 1991;12:138–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liska V, Holubec Jr L, Treska V, Vrzalova J, Skalicky T, Sutnar A, Kormunda S, Bruha J, Vycital O, Finek J, Pesta M, Pecen L, Topolcan O. Evaluation of tumour markers as differential diagnostic tool in patients with suspicion of liver metastases from breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2011;31:1447–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Price MR, Rye PD, Petrakou E, Murray A, Brady K, Imai S, Haga S, Kiyozuka Y, Schol D, Meulenbroek MF, Snijdewint FG, von Mensdorff-Pouilly S, Verstraeten RA, Kenemans P, Blockzjil A, Nilsson K, Nilsson O, Reddish M, Suresh MR, Koganty RR, Fortier S, Baronic L, Berg A, Longenecker MB, Hilgers J, et al. Summary report on the isobm td-4 workshop: analysis of 56 monoclonal antibodies against the muc1 mucin. San Siego, CA, November 17–23, 1996. Tumour Biol. 1998;19 Suppl 1:1–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dnistrian AM, Schwartz MK, Greenberg EJ, Smith CA, Schwartz DC. Evaluation of ca m26, ca m29, ca 15-3 and cea as circulating tumor markers in breast cancer patients. Tumour Biol. 1991;12:82–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robertson JF, O’Neill KL, Thomas MW, McKenna PG, Blamey RW. Thymidine kinase in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:663–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molina R, Jo J, Filella X, Zanon G, Pahisa J, Munoz M, Farrus B, Latre ML, Gimenez N, Hage M, Estape J, Ballesta AM. C-erbb-2 oncoprotein in the sera and tissue of patients with breast cancer. Utility in prognosis. Anticancer Res. 1996;16:2295–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Retz M, Lehmann J, Amann E, Wullich B, Roder C, Stockle M. Mucin 7 and cytokeratin 20 as new diagnostic urinary markers for bladder tumor. J Urol. 2003;169:86–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Canizares F, Sola J, Perez M, Tovar I, De Las Heras M, Salinas J, Penafiel R, Martinez P. Preoperative values of ca 15-3 and cea as prognostic factors in breast cancer: a multivariate analysis. Tumour Biol. 2001;22:273–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molina R, Filella X, Alicarte J, Zanon G, Pahisa J, Munoz M, Farrus B, Ballesta AM. Prospective evaluation of cea and ca 15.3 in patients with locoregional breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2003;23:1035–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romain S, Christensen IJ, Chinot O, Balslev I, Rose C, Martin PM, Thorpe SM. Prognostic value of cytosolic thymidine kinase activity as a marker of proliferation in breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 1995;61:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Neill KL, Hoper M, Odling-Smee GW. Can thymidine kinase levels in breast tumors predict disease recurrence? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84:1825–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    He Q, Fornander T, Johansson H, Johansson U, Hu GZ, Rutqvist LE, Skog S. Thymidine kinase 1 in serum predicts increased risk of distant or loco-regional recurrence following surgery in patients with early breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2006;26:4753–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Hamilton A. Her2. A ‘predictive factor’ ready to use in the daily management of breast cancer patients? Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1755–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sobin LH, Fleming ID: Tnm classification of malignant tumors, fifth edition (1997). Union internationale contre le cancer and the american joint committee on cancer. 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, Somerfield MR, Hayes DF, Bast Jr RC. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vizcarra E, Lluch A, Cibrian R, Jarque F, Garcia-Conde J. Ca 15.3, cea and tpa tumor markers in the early diagnosis of breast cancer relapse. Oncology. 1994;51:491–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molina R, Barak V, van Dalen A, Duffy MJ, Einarsson R, Gion M, Goike H, Lamerz R, Nap M, Soletormos G, Stieber P. Tumor markers in breast cancer—European group on tumor markers recommendations. Tumour Biol. 2005;26:281–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP, Meijer-Van Gelder ME, Klijn JG, Kruger A, Kiechle M, Janicke F, Schmitt M, Foekens JA. Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinase-type plasminogen activator (upa) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (n = 3424). Cancer Res. 2002;62:4617–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soussi T, Beroud C. Assessing tp53 status in human tumours to evaluate clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2001;1:233–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Look MP, van Putten WL, Duffy MJ, Harbeck N, Christensen IJ, Thomssen C, Kates R, Spyratos F, Ferno M, Eppenberger-Castori S, Sweep CG, Ulm K, Peyrat JP, Martin PM, Magdelenat H, Brunner N, Duggan C, Lisboa BW, Bendahl PO, Quillien V, Daver A, Ricolleau G, Meijer-van Gelder ME, Manders P, Fiets WE, Blankenstein MA, Broet P, Romain S, Daxenbichler G, Windbichler G, Cufer T, Borstnar S, Kueng W, Beex LV, Klijn JG, O’Higgins N, Eppenberger U, Janicke F, Schmitt M, Foekens JA. Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor pai-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:116–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park BW, Oh JW, Kim JH, Park SH, Kim KS, Lee KS. Preoperative ca 15-3 and cea serum levels as predictor for breast cancer outcomes. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:675–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao X, Xu X, Zhang Q, Jia Z, Sun S, Zhang J, Wang B, Wang Z, Hu X. Prognostic and predictive value of clinical and biochemical factors in breast cancer patients with bone metastases receiving “metronomic” zoledronic acid. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu XH, Zhang YM, Shu XH, Shan LH, Wang ZW, Zhou YL, Wen HK, He F, He E, Skog S. Serum thymidine kinase 1 reflects the progression of pre-malignant and malignant tumors during therapy. Mol Med Rep. 2008;1:705–11.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brunner N, Chan DW, Babaian R, Bast Jr RC, Dowell B, Esteva FJ, Haglund C, Harbeck N, Hayes DF, Holten-Andersen M, Klee GG, Lamerz R, Looijenga LH, Molina R, Nielsen HJ, Rittenhouse H, Semjonow A, Shih Ie M, Sibley P, Soletormos G, Stephan C, Sokoll L, Hoffman BR, Diamandis EP. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gion M, Boracchi P, Dittadi R, Biganzoli E, Peloso L, Mione R, Gatti C, Paccagnella A, Marubini E. Prognostic role of serum ca15.3 in 362 node-negative breast cancers. An old player for a new game. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1181–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guadagni F, Ferroni P, Carlini S, Mariotti S, Spila A, Aloe S, D’Alessandro R, Carone MD, Cicchetti A, Ricciotti A, Venturo I, Perri P, Di Filippo F, Cognetti F, Botti C, Roselli M. A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (cea) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:2357–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lumachi F, Ermani M, Brandes AA, Basso S, Basso U, Boccagni P. Predictive value of different prognostic factors in breast cancer recurrences: multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model. Anticancer Res. 2001;21:4105–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Duffy MJ, Duggan C, Keane R, Hill AD, McDermott E, Crown J, O’Higgins N. 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;50:559–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giovanella L, Ceriani L, Giardina G, Bardelli D, Tanzi F, Garancini S. Serum cytokeratin fragment 21.1 (cyfra 21.1) as tumour marker for breast cancer: comparison with carbohydrate antigen 15.3 (ca 15.3) and carcinoembryonic antigen (cea). Clin Chem Lab Med: CCLM/FESCC. 2002;40:298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kumpulainen EJ, Keskikuru RJ, Johansson RT. Serum tumor marker ca 15.3 and stage are the two most powerful predictors of survival in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;76:95–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McLaughlin R, McGrath J, Grimes H, Given HF. The prognostic value of the tumor marker ca 15-3 at initial diagnosis of patients with breast cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2000;15:340–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uehara M, Kinoshita T, Hojo T, Akashi-Tanaka S, Iwamoto E, Fukutomi T. Long-term prognostic study of carcinoembryonic antigen (cea) and carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (ca 15-3) in breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13:447–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Molina R, Filella X, Zanon G, Pahisa J, Alicarte J, Munoz M, Farrus B, Ballesta AM. Prospective evaluation of tumor markers (c-erbb-2 oncoprotein, cea and ca 15.3) in patients with locoregional breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 2003;23:1043–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Elfagieh
    • 1
  • Fathi Abdalla
    • 2
    • 3
  • Asma Gliwan
    • 1
  • Jamela Boder
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wafa Nichols
    • 4
  • Abdelbaset Buhmeida
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyNational Cancer InstituteMisurataLibya
  2. 2.Department of PathologyNational Cancer InstituteMisurataLibya
  3. 3.Department of PathologyTurku UniversityTurkuFinland
  4. 4.Center of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research (CEGMR)King Abdul-Aziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations