Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
This study aimed to compare the non-acid nucleic blood multi-factor panels together and with mammography in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in primary breast cancer detection (I, II, III, and IV). We systematically reviewed studies assessing non-acid nucleic blood tumor markers panels’ diagnostic value in both healthy women and patients (before any anticancer treatment) for the detection of primary breast cancer. Out of the 2358 titles initially identified, 12 studies and 9 panels were included in the network meta-analysis. Panels I (MSA + B2m) and J (GATA3 + E-cadherin) had the highest sensitivity in all stages of primary breast cancer but had no significant difference with mammography. Panels L (MSA + CA15–3) and B (M-CSF + CA15–3) had the highest specificity in all stages compared to other panels but no remarkable difference with mammography. Panels J (GATA3 + E-cadherin) and I (MSA + B2m) respectively had the highest accuracy in primary breast cancer detection but no considerable difference with mammography in terms of accuracy. Panel J, including GATA3 + E-cadherin, demonstrated a higher diagnostic value for primary breast cancer detection (I, II, III, and IV) than the rest of the panels.
Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Amin Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Ziba Farajzadegan*
Community and Preventive Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Marjan Mansourian
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Khojaste Ghasemi
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Mohammad Sadegh Aboutalebi
Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Rasool Nouri
Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Fariborz Mokarian
Hematology and Oncology Department of Internal Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
*Address all correspondence to: www.mahantajhizs@gmail.com and farajzadegan@med.mui.ac.ir
1. Introduction
Based on our previous study [1], the necessity of a noninvasive, accessible, cost-effective, and reliable method for breast cancer detection based on blood factors was proved. Furthermore, blood multi-factor panels can be the best choice for such a method thanks to improving the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection considerably compared to the individual state. In that study [1], we had determined the best non-acid nucleic blood multi-factor panels for breast cancer detection in early stages and locoregional breast cancer (I, II, and III). In this brief study, however, we compared the best non-acid nucleic blood multi-factor panels in primary breast cancer detection (I, II, III, and IV) by conducting a network meta-analysis. In fact, this study aimed to offer new insight into the diagnostic value of the best panels of non-acid nucleic blood tumor markers to detect primary breast cancer along all stages not only in early stages. The breast malignancy that emerges and can be diagnosed for the first time is named primary breast cancer, and if it recurs after primary treatment including surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and radiotherapy individually or collectively, it will be named secondary breast cancer [2]. Primary breast cancer comprises locoregional (I, II, III) and metastatic stages (IV) [3].
The systematic reviews of the observational studies were conducted based on PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) [4]. Eligibility criteria, search strategy (supplementary material 1 B), databases, study selection, data extraction, and statistical analysis conformed to our former study [1]. The difference is that, in this brief study, we systematically reviewed the studies that have simultaneously assessed several tumor markers in the form of a panel to diagnose and detect breast cancer in all stages of primary breast cancer (I, II, III, and IV).
The included panels were B: M-CSF + CA15–3, C: VEGF + CA15–3, D: VEGF + M-CSF + CA 15–3, E: VEGF+ M-CSF, F: p16+ c-MYC+ P53, G: CA15–3 + CEA, I: MSA + B2m, J: GATA3 + E-cadherin and L: MSA + CA15–3.
All these panels were made based on simultaneous measurement of two or three blood tumor markers in patients and healthy people using a compatible linear combination method [5]. Panels (B, C, D, E, F, G) were assessed in more than one study (multiple studies), and panels (I, J, L) were only assessed in one study (single study). We conducted direct and indirect paired comparisons of the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the included blood tumor markers panels for diagnosing primary breast cancer in all stages. All the investigations were conducted in comparison to mammography (M) as the gold standard [6, 7, 8], like our previous study (Figure 1) [1].
Figure 1.
Multiple comparison of different panels for sensitivity. B: M-CSF + CA15–3, C: VEGF + CA15–3, D: VEGF + M-CSF + CA 15–3, E: VEGF+ M-CSF, F: p16+ c-MYC+ P53, G: CA15–3 + CEA, I: MSA + B2m, J: GATA3 + E-cadherin. L: MSA + CA15–3 M = mammography.
Study selection conformed to our former study [1]. However, in this brief study, among the 54 studies relevant to our research question which contained 86 unique blood tumor markers panels (supplementary material 2) conforming to our eligibility criteria, only 12 studies and 9 panels presented enough data for estimating sensitivity and specificity in all stages (I, II, III, and IV) of primary breast cancer and could be included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. These 12 studies were similar in terms of pre-analytical procedures and analytical methods (Table 1).
The scoring system based on the CASP checklist (specified for diagnostic studies) was applied to all studies.
The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of all studies were evaluated in all stages of primary breast cancer (I, II, III, and IV).
All the included and excluded studies are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of included and excluded articles. *Although we sent emails to articles’ authors to get their full texts, we did not receive any answers.
Association between diagnosis of primary breast cancer and blood tumor markers panels:
Panels I (MSA + B2m) and J (GATA3 + E-cadherin) had the highest sensitivity in primary breast cancer but did not have noticeable differences with mammography. Panels G (CA15–3 + CEA) and F (p16+ c-MYC+ P53) had the lowest sensitivity than the rest of the panels and mammography as mammography exhibited a remarkably better function than them, with OR = 0.13 and 95% CL (0.04–0.46) and OR = 0.15 and 95% CL (0.04–0.52) (Figure 3a, Table 2). In diagnostic tests, sensitivity had a vital role in screening diseases [21]. As a result, we can claim that the panels which had the highest sensitivity can be promising diagnostic tests in primary breast cancer screening, which included panels I and J in all stages of primary breast cancer. Panels L (MSA + CA15–3) and B (M-CSF + CA15–3) had the highest specificity but did not have remarkable differences with mammography. Panels G (CA15–3 + CEA) and D (VEGF + M-CSF + CA 15–3) had the lowest specificity as mammography demonstrated a superior function in specificity, with OR = 0.06 and 95% CL (0.01–0.39) and OR = 0.06 and 95% CL (0.02–0.19) (Figure 3b, Table 3). Mammography had a better function in specificity than a large number of panels, since it exhibited the highest specificity after panel L with OR = 2.54 and 95% CL (0.1–177.46) in diagnosing primary breast cancer. Panels J (GATA3 + E-cadherin) and I (MSA + B2m) possessed the highest accuracy in primary breast cancer but did not show significant differences with mammography. Panel L (MSA + CA15–3) did not demonstrate considerable differences with panel I; therefore, we could consider them approximately similar regarding accuracy. Panels G (CA15–3 + CEA) and F (p16+ c-MYC+ P53) possessed the lowest accuracy in primary breast cancer as mammography exhibited a considerably superior function in accuracy, with OR = 0.15 and 95% CL (0.07–0.3) and OR = 0.37 and 95% CL (0.17–0.74) (Figure 3c, Table 4).
Figure 3.
Estimated rank probability of all panels’ sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. B: M-CSF + CA15–3, C: VEGF + CA15–3, D: VEGF + M-CSF + CA 15–3, E: VEGF+ M-CSF, F: p16+ c-MYC+ P53, G: CA15–3 + CEA, I: MSA + B2m, J: GATA3 + E-cadherin. L: MSA + CA15–3 M = mammography.
B
C
D
E
F
G
I
J
L
M
B
1
C
1.18 (0.42–2.96)
1
D
0.83 (0.28–2.29)
0.71 (0.25–2)
1
E
1.73 (0.62–4.83)
1.47 (0.56–4.24)
2.09 (0.72–6.32)
1
F
10.52 (2.42–46.72)
9.01 (2.16–39.41)
12.73 (2.85–60.57)
6.13 (1.34–27.66)
1
G
11.94 (2.69–56.3)
10.21 (2.36–46.39)
14.57 (3.07–70.46)
6.93 (1.49–32.44)
1.12 (0.19–6.78)
1
I
0.44 (0.05–3.44)
0.37 (0.05–2.95)
0.52 (0.06–4.22)
0.25 (0.03–2.01)
0.04 (0.01–0.4)
0.04 (0.01–0.37)
1
J
0.64 (0.09–4.78)
0.54 (0.08–4.16)
0.77 (0.1–6.26)
0.37 (0.05–2.95)
0.06 (0.01–0.57)
0.05 (0.01–0.52)
1.46 (0.11–22.19)
1
L
1.13 (0.16–7.97)
0.98 (0.14–6.79)
1.37 (0.19–10.07)
0.65 (0.09–4.78)
0.11 (0.01–1)
0.09 (0.01–0.87)
2.6 (0.18–36.26)
1.79 (0.13–22.86)
1
M
1.59 (0.69–3.53)
1.35 (0.65–2.94)
1.91 (0.78–4.88)
0.91 (0.38–2.26)
0.15 (0.04–0.52)
0.13 (0.04–0.46)
3.63 (0.55–25.11)
2.47 (0.37–15.96)
1.4 (0.24–8.3)
1
Table 2.
Relative effects and its 95% credible interval of all pairwise panels for sensitivity based on Bayesian network meta-analysis method.
The best panels based on total function: J: GATA3 + E-cadherin, I: MSA + B2m.
In diagnosing primary breast cancer, panels J and I exhibited the highest accuracy and total function compared to other panels. Overall, we recommend panel J because it had an even better function in accuracy than panel I, despite being minor (Table 1) and its study had a larger sample size (200). Panel J was made of GATA3 and E-cadherin. GATA3 is a transcription factor that plays a crucial role in the development and progression of breast cancer and can reverse the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. It also regulates the proliferation, differentiation, and development of cells. E-cadherin is a member of the cadherin family mainly expressed in epithelial cells. E-cadherin mediates the adhesion of allogeneic epithelial cells and plays a key role in epithelial cell aggregation and adhesion. Studies have demonstrated that the expression of cadherin is closely related to the invasion of breast cancer [18].
In conclusion, panel J including GATA3 + E-cadherin with a sensitivity of 90 and specificity of 91.7 demonstrated a higher diagnostic value for primary breast cancer than the rest of the panels as it exhibited higher function in accuracy than mammography, with OR = 1.38 and 95% CL (0.42–4.41), although it was not remarkable. After panel J, panel I (MSA + B2m) with a sensitivity of 90 and specificity of 90.3 and panel L (MSA + CA15–3) with a sensitivity of 84 and specificity of 100 had the best function in primary breast cancer detection than the rest of the panels. However, more experimental studies are required with larger samples, on different populations, and using other chemical measurement methods to verify these results.
Vahid Raja had the idea for the research. The literature search was performed by Vahid Raja, Mohammad Sadegh Aboutalebi, and Rasool Nouri. The data analysis was performed by Marjan Mansourian and Khojaste Ghasemi. The article was drafted by Vahid Raja and Ziba Farajzadegan. The article was critically revised by Vahid Raja, Ziba Farajzadegan, and Fariborz Mokarian.
Including traditional meta-analysis of all panels, nod-splitting analysis of inconsistency for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, ranking of different panels in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, the search strategy for each data base, and 54 studies were identified relevant to our research question.
References
1.Raja V, Farajzadegan Z, Mansourian M, Ghasemi K, Aboutalebi MS, Nouri R, et al. Diagnostic value of nonacid nucleic blood tumor marker panels in early diagnosing breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Disease Markers. 2022;2022:15
2.Sadler C, Goldfarb M. Comparison of primary and secondary breast cancers in adolescents and young adults. Cancer. 2015;121(8):1295-1302
3.Zackrisson S, Cardoso F, Guidelines E. Clinical practice guidelines primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up† clinical practice guidelines. Annals of Oncology. 2015;26(5):8-30
4.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264-269
5.Pepe MS, Thompson ML. Combining diagnostic test results to increase accuracy. Biostatistics. 2000;1(2):123-140
6.Yankaskas BC, Haneuse S, Kapp JM, Kerlikowske K, Geller B, Buist DS, et al. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010;102(10):692-701
7.Sinclair N, Littenberg B, Geller B, Muss H. Accuracy of screening mammography in older women. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2011;197(5):1268-1273
8.Ontario HQ. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: An evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2007;7(1):1-32
9.Zajkowska M, Głażewska EK, Będkowska GE, Chorąży P, Szmitkowski M, Ławicki S. Diagnostic power of vascular endothelial growth factor and macrophage colony-stimulating factor in breast cancer patients based on ROC analysis. Mediators of Inflammation. 2016;2016:8
10.Sacks N, Stacker S, Thompson C, Collins J, Russell I, Sullivan J, et al. Comparison of mammary serum antigen (MSA) and CA15-3 levels in the serum of patients with breast cancer. British journal of cancer. 1987;56(6):820-824
11.Liu Y, Liao Y, Xiang L, Jiang K, Li S, Huangfu M, et al. A panel of autoantibodies as potential early diagnostic serum biomarkers in patients with breast cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;22(2):291-296
12.Molina R, Jo J, Filella X, Zanon G, Pahisa J, Muñoz M, et al. c-erbB-2 oncoprotein, CEA, and CA 15.3 in patients with breast cancer: Prognostic value. Breast cancer research and treatment. 1998;51(2):109-119
13.Ławicki S, Zajkowska M, Głażewska EK, Będkowska GE, Szmitkowski M. Plasma levels and diagnostic utility of VEGF, MMP-9, and TIMP-1 in the diagnosis of patients with breast cancer. Onco Targets and therapy. 2016;9:911
14.Ławicki S, Zajkowska M, Głażewska EK, Będkowska GE, Szmitkowski M. Plasma levels and diagnostic utility of VEGF, MMP-2 and TIMP-2 in the diagnostics of breast cancer patients. Biomarkers. 2017;22(2):157-164
15.Tjandra J, McLaughlin P, Russell I, Collins J, McKenzie I. Comparison of mammary serum antigen (MSA) with β2-microglobulin (β2M) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assays in patients with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology. 1988;24(10):1633-1640
16.Ławicki S, Będkowska G, Wojtukiewicz M, Szmitkowski M. Hematopoietic cytokines as tumor markers in breast malignancies. A multivariate analysis with ROC curve in breast cancer patients. Advances in Medical Sciences. 2013;58(2):207-215
17.Ławicki S, Będkowska GE, Szmitkowski M. VEGF, M-CSF and CA 15-3 as a new tumor marker panel in breast malignancies: A multivariate analysis with ROC curve. Growth Factors. 2013;31(3):98-105
18.Luo M, Huang Y, Huang J, Huang S, Wei L, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluation of the value of GATA3 combined with E-cadherin in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Journal of BU ON: Official Journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology. 2019;24(3):1038-1044
19.Looi K, Megliorino R, Shi F-D, Peng X-X, Chen Y, Zhang J-Y. Humoral immune response to p16, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor in human malignancies. Oncology Reports. 2006;16(5):1105-1110
20.Guadagni F, Ferroni P, Carlini S, Mariotti S, Spila A, Aloe S, et al. A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: A prospective longitudinal study. Clinical Cancer Research. 2001;7(8):2357-2362
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
