A role for biomarkers in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in younger women

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 533-544

  Esserman, Laura J ^a   Shieh, Yiwey ^b   Park, John W ^a   Ozanne, Elissa M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomarker; Cancer susceptibility; Early detection; Prevention; Regional cancer rare; Screening

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; TUMOR MARKER;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MORBIDITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONSET AGE; PERIPHERAL BLOOD MONONUCLEAR CELL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; ADULT; AGED; BLOOD; BREAST TUMOR; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETICS; INCIDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REGISTER; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; REGISTRIES; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 35148864355     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: 17448352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737159.7.5.533     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA (2007)
2. Jemal A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Recent trends In breast cancer incidence rates by age and tumor characteristics among US women. Breast Cancer Res. 9(3), R28 (2007). * Join-point analysis of Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry data was used to examine trends over time of female breast cancer by size, stage and receptor status. The authors reported two significant trends: a downturn in incidence rates of female breast cancer in age groups over 45 years starting in 1998, as well as a particularly sharp drop in postmenopausal breast cancers from 2002 to 2003.
3. Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N et al. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 356(16), 1670-1674 (2007). • Analysis of the recent reduction in breast cancer incidence that attributes the decrease to the reduced use of hormone-replacement therapy after menopause. After the Women's Health Initiative Study results were published, use plummeted and, shortly thereafter, the rates of estrogen receptor-positive tumors dropped in postmenopausal women only.
4. Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Walker R, Carney PA. Declines in invasive breast cancer and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy in a screening mammography population. J. Natl Cancer Inst. (2007) (Epub ahead of print).
5. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 275(12), 913-918 (1996).
6. Li CI, Daling JR, Malone KE. Age-specific incidence rates of in situ breast carcinomas by histologic type, 1980 to 2001. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14(4), 1008-1011 (2005).
7. Iwase H, Ando Y, Ichihara S et al. Immunohistochemical analysis on biological markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer 8(2), 98-104 (2001).
8. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer 55(11), 2698-2708 (1985).
9. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N. Engl J. Med. 353(3), 229-237 (2005).
10. Dupont WD, Parl FF, Hartmann WH et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 71(4), 1258-1265 (1993).
11. Ma L, Boyd NF. Atypical hyperplasia and breast cancer risk: a critique. Cancer Causes Control 3(6), 517-525 (1992).
12. Welch HG. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA (2004). •• This provocative book challenges us to rethink the impact of screening and carefully examine the true value of testing for the presence of cancer. We highly recommend this book to all researchers in the field of cancer biomarker development.
13. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP. Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer. CMAJ 176(13), 1853-1858 (2007).
14. Habel LA, Shak S, Jacobs MK et al. A population-based study of tumor gene expression and risk of breast cancer death among lymph node-negative patients. Breast Cancer Res. 8(3), R25 (2006).
15. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(27), 2817-2826 (2004).
16. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98(17), 1183-1192 (2006).
17. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415(6871), 530-536 (2002).
18. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347(25), 1999-2009 (2002).
19. Jansen MP, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP et al. HOXB13-to-IL17BR expression ratio is related with tumor aggressiveness and response to tamoxifen of recurrent breast cancer: a retrospective study. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(6), 662-668 (2007).
20. Williams TM, Budd GT, Gunter M et al. Validation of genomic markers that predict distant recurrence risk via FISH assays in women with early stage breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 25(Suppl. 18) 10506 (2007).
21. Esserman LJ, Ozanne EM. Predicting the truly cured: the use of recursive partitioning in early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Forum 16, 2-7 (2007).
22. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(4), 980-991 (2001).
23. Baum M, Ravdin PM. Decision-making in early breast cancer: guidelines and decision tools. Eur. J. Cancer 38(6), 745-749 (2002).
24. Loprinzi CL, Thome SD. Understanding the utility of adjuvant systemic therapy for primary breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 19(4), 972-979 (2001).
25. Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, Janzon L, Linell F. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 159(2), 287-294 (1992).
26. Esserman L, Kaplan E, Partridge S et al. MRI phenotype is associated with response to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 8(6), 549-559 (2001).
27. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N. Engl. J. Med. 351(5), 427-437 (2004).
28. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative,and HER2-negatlve invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109(9), 1721-1728 (2007).
29. Albain KS, Allred DC, Clark GM. Breast cancer outcome and predictors of outcome: are there age differentials? J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16, 35-42 (1994).
30. Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. Br. Med. J. 329(7464), 477 (2004).
31. Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. Evaluating Screening Performance in Practice. NIH Publication No. 04-5490. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, USA (2004).
32. Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R et al. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 98(17), 1204-1214 (2006).
33. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 87(9), 670-675 (1995).
34. Kato I, Beinart C, Bleich A, Su S, Kim M, Tonlolo PG. A nested case-control study of mammographic patterns, breast volume, and breast cancer (New York City, NY, United States). Cancer Causes Control 6(5), 431-438 (1995).
35. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography, JAMA 276(1), 33-38 (1996).
36. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr. 36, 37-47 (2006).
37. Esserman L, Kerlikowske K. Should we recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49? Oncology (Williston Park) 10(3), 357-364; discussion: 370-356 (1996).
38. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355(9198), 129-134 (2000).
39. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358(9290), 1340-1342 (2001).
40. Qaseem A, Snow V, Sherif K, Aronson M, Weiss KB, Owens DK. Screening mammography for women 40 to 49 years of age: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 146(7), 511-515 (2007).
41. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368(9552), 2053-2060 (2006).
42. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J. Clin. 53(3), 141-169 (2003).
43. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 137(5 Part 1), 347-360 (2002).
44. Herdman R, Norton L. Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Institute of Medicine (US), National Cancer Policy Board (US), Committee on New Approaches to Early Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer, National Research Council (US). Saving Women's Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis: a Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Institute of Medicine Symposium. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA (2005).
45. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94(5), 369-375 (2002).
46. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11), 1317-1325 (2004).
47. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Obdeijn IM et al. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 100(1), 109-119(2006).
48. Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295(20), 2374-2384 (2006).
49. Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM et al. Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447(7148), 1087-1093 (2007).
50. Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB et al. A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 39(7), 870-874 (2007).
51. Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P et al. Common variants on chromosomes 2q35 and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 39(7), 865-869 (2007).
52. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97(22), 1652-1662 (2005).
53. Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation. JAMA 281(23), 2189-2197 (1999).
54. Bond GL, Hu W, Bond EE et al. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the MDM2 promoter attenuates the p53 tumor suppressor pathway and accelerates tumor formation in humans. Cell 119(5), 591-602 (2004).
55. Bond GL, Hu W, Levine A. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the MDM2 gene: from a molecular and cellular explanation to clinical effect. Cancer Res. 65(13), 5481-5484 (2005).
56. Bond GL, Hirshfield KM, Kirchhoff T et al. MDM2 SNP309 accelerates tumor formation in a gender-specific and hormone-dependent manner. Cancer Res. 66(10), 5104-5110 (2006).
57. Wasielewski M, Nagel JH, Brekelmans C et al. MDM2 SNP309 accelerates familial breast carcinogenesis independently of estrogen signaling. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 104(2), 153-157 (2006).
58. Wilkening S, Bermejo JL, Burwinkel B et al. The single nucleotide polymorphism IVS1+309 in mouse double minute 2 does not affect risk of familial breast cancer. Cancer Res. 66(2), 646-648 (2006).
59. Campbell IG, Eccles DM, Choong DY. No association of the MDM2 SNP309 polymorphism with risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Cancer Lett. 240(2), 195-197 (2006).
60. Belluco C, Petricoin EF, Mammano E et al. Serum proteomic analysis identifies a highly sensitive and specific discriminatory pattern in stage 1 breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. (2007) (Epub ahead of print).
61. Li J, Zhang Z, Rosenzweig J, Wang YY, Chan DW. Proteomics and bioinformatics approaches for identification of serum biomarkers to detect breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 48(8), 1296-1304 (2002).
62. Li J, Orlandi R, White CN et al. Independent validation of candidate breast cancer serum biomarkers identified by mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 51(12), 2229-2235 (2005).
63. Twine NC, Stover JA, Marshall B et al. Disease-associated expression profiles in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 63(18), 6069-6075 (2003).
64. Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Zalles CM et al. Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gall risk model. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92(15), 1217-1227 (2000).
65. Dooley WC, Ljung BM, Veronesi U et al. Ductal lavage for detection of cellular atypia in women at high risk for breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93(21), 1624-1632 (2001).
66. Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Mayo MS, Khan SA. Breast-tissue sampling for risk assessment and prevention. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 12(2), 185-213 (2005).
67. Ozanne EM, Esserman LJ. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment techniques: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 13(12), 2043-2052 (2004). • This cost-effectiveness analysis of atypia as a method for screening women at high risk for breast cancer also shows the impact of chemopreventive agents, and that markers that predict risk, as well as responsiveness to chemopreventive agents are extremely cost effective.
68. Adduci KM, Annis CE, DeVries S et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization of ductal lavage samples identifies malignant phenotypes from cytologically normal cells in women with breast cancer. Cancer 111(3), 185-191 (2007).
69. Li J, Zhao J, Yu X et al. Identification of biomarkers for breast cancer in nipple aspiration and ductal lavage fluid. Clin. Cancer Res. 11(23), 8312-8320 (2005).
70. Fackler MJ, McVeigh M, Mehrotra J et al. Quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR assay for the detection of promoter hypermethylation in multiple genes in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 64(13), 4442-4452 (2004).
71. Krassenstein R, Sauter E, Dulaimi E et al. Detection of breast cancer in nipple aspirate fluid by CpG island hypermethylation. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(1 Pt 1), 28-32 (2004).
72. Dulaimi E, Hillinck J, Ibanez de Caceres I, Al-Saleem T, Cairns P. Tumor suppressor gene promoter hypermethylation in serum of breast cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(18 Pt 1), 6189-6193 (2004).
73. Burnside E, Belkora J, Esserman L. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States. Clin. Breast Cancer 2(2), 145-152 (2001).
74. Ozanne EM, Klemp JR, Esserman LJ. Breast cancer risk assessment and prevention: a framework for shared decision-making consultations. Breast J. 12(2), 103-113 (2006). • Outlines the comprehensive decision framework developed to support breast cancer prevention consultations within a shared decision-making setting. The framework integrates predictive information from current risk models within the context of a woman's general health to appropriately frame breast cancer risk management consultations, and outlines the application of available treatments and emerging biomarker information to individual patient decisions.
75. Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I et al. Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer - 96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99(4), 272-282 (2007). • Results of a randomized trial of chemoprevention with tamoxifen for women at risk for breast cancer confirm the observation that this drug reduces the risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer and that the impact persists for at least 5 years after the drug has stopped. High-risk young women stand to gain the most benefit from chemoprevention.
76. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 81(24), 1879-1886 (1989).
77. Tchou J, Hou N, Rademaker A, Jordan VC, Morrow M. Acceptance of tamoxifen chemoprevention by physicians and women at risk. Cancer 100(9), 1800-1806 (2004).
78. Port ER, Montgomery LL, Heerdt AS, Borgen PI. Patient reluctance toward tamoxifen use for breast cancer primary prevention. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 8(7), 580-585 (2001).
79. Goldenberg VK, Seewaldt VL, Scott V et al. Atypia in random periareolar fine-needle aspiration affects the decision of women at high risk to take tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 16(5), 1032-1034 (2007).
80. Yankaskas BS, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234(2), 363-1373 (2005).