Advertisement

Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 11, pp 11121–11127 | Cite as

Calponin-h2: a potential serum marker for the early detection of human breast cancer?

  • Manuel Debald
  • Jian-Ping Jin
  • Andrea Linke
  • Klaus-Jürgen Walgenbach
  • Peter Rauch
  • Angela Zellmer
  • Rolf Fimmers
  • Walther Kuhn
  • Gunther Hartmann
  • Gisela Walgenbach-Brünagel
Research Article

Abstract

Early diagnosis is the key for the successful treatment of breast cancer. A serum marker for the early detection of breast cancer could significantly reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality by bringing the time of diagnosis at an earlier and therefore still curable stage. So far, no biomarker for the early detection is available for the clinical routine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of calponin-h2 as a blood-based biomarker for the early diagnosis of this disease. Using two monoclonal antibodies against calponin-h2, we developed a sandwich ELISA to analyze the serum levels of calponin-h2. In order to evaluate the diagnostic potential of this biomarker, patients with breast cancer (n = 76), benign diseases of the breast (n = 51) and healthy females (n = 24) were analyzed. Serum levels above 10 ng/ml were only observed in patients with breast cancer (n = 8; 10.5 %). Further large-scale studies and preanalytic evaluations are necessary to clarify the definite role of calponin-h2 as a biomarker in breast cancer management.

Keywords

Breast cancer Biomarker Calponin-h2 Screening Diagnosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Manuel Debald is funded by BONFOR, University of Bonn.

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Arriagada R, Rutqvist LE, Johansson H, Kramar A, Rotstein S. Predicting distant dissemination in patients with early breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:1113–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cianfrocca M, Goldstein LJ. Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage breast cancer. Oncologist. 2004;9:606–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:99–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361:1405–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1432–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    IARC (2002) IARC Handbooks of cancer prevention: breast cancer screening. IARC PressGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Death: final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schopper D, de Wolf C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1916–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson BO, Yip CH, Ramsey SD, Bengoa R, Braun S, Fitch M, et al. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: health care systems and public policy. Breast J. 2006;12 Suppl 1:S54–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golubnitschaja O, Yeghiazaryan K, Costigliola V, Trog D, Braun M, Debald M, et al. Risk assessment, disease prevention and personalised treatments in breast cancer: is clinically qualified integrative approach in the horizon? EPMA J. 2013;4:6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Debald M, Franken S, Heukamp LC, Linke A, Wolfgarten M, Walgenbach KJ et al (2011) Identification of specific nuclear structural protein alterations in human breast cancer. J Cell BiochemGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takahashi K, Hiwada K, Kokubu T. Isolation and characterization of a 34,000-dalton calmodulin- and F-actin-binding protein from chicken gizzard smooth muscle. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1986;141:20–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jin JP, Zhang Z, Bautista JA. Isoform diversity, regulation, and functional adaptation of troponin and calponin. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2008;18:93–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu KC, Jin JP. Calponin in non-muscle cells. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2008;52:139–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tang J, Hu G, Hanai J, Yadlapalli G, Lin Y, Zhang B, et al. A critical role for calponin 2 in vascular development. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:6664–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jin JP, Wu D, Gao J, Nigam R, Kwong S. Expression and purification of the h1 and h2 isoforms of calponin. Protein Expr Purif. 2003;31:231–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drucker E, Krapfenbauer K. Pitfalls and limitations in translation from biomarker discovery to clinical utility in predictive and personalised medicine. EPMA J. 2013;4:7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poste G. Bring on the biomarkers. Nature. 2011;469:156–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson BO, Yip CH, Ramsey SD, Bengoa R, Braun S, Fitch M, et al. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: health care systems and public policy. Breast J. 2006;12 Suppl 1:S54–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson BO, Yip CH, Smith RA, Shyyan R, Sener SF, Eniu A, et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries: overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007. Cancer. 2008;113:2221–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Debald M, Wolfgarten M, Walgenbach-Brünagel G, Kuhn W, Braun M. Non-invasive proteomics-thinking about personalized breast cancer screening and treatment. EPMA J. 2010;1:413–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waerner T, Thurnher D, Krapfenbauer K. The role of laboratory medicine in healthcare: quality requirements of immunoassays, standardisation and data management in prospective medicine. EPMA J. 2010;1:619–26.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Debald
    • 1
  • Jian-Ping Jin
    • 2
  • Andrea Linke
    • 3
  • Klaus-Jürgen Walgenbach
    • 4
  • Peter Rauch
    • 5
  • Angela Zellmer
    • 5
  • Rolf Fimmers
    • 6
  • Walther Kuhn
    • 1
  • Gunther Hartmann
    • 3
  • Gisela Walgenbach-Brünagel
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre for Integrated OncologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhysiologyWayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Integrated OncologyUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  4. 4.Department of Plastic and Aesthetic SurgeryUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  5. 5.CANDOR Bioscience GmbHWangenGermany
  6. 6.Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics and Epidemiology (IMBIE)University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations