We've updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data.

We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. You can read our Cookie Policy here.

Advertisement
The Value of Serum Biomarkers (Bc1, Bc2, Bc3) in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer
News

The Value of Serum Biomarkers (Bc1, Bc2, Bc3) in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer

The Value of Serum Biomarkers (Bc1, Bc2, Bc3) in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer
News

The Value of Serum Biomarkers (Bc1, Bc2, Bc3) in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer

Read time:
 

Want a FREE PDF version of This News Story?

Complete the form below and we will email you a PDF version of "The Value of Serum Biomarkers (Bc1, Bc2, Bc3) in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer"

First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Country*
Company Type*
Job Function*
Would you like to receive further email communication from Technology Networks?

Technology Networks Ltd. needs the contact information you provide to us to contact you about our products and services. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For information on how to unsubscribe, as well as our privacy practices and commitment to protecting your privacy, check out our Privacy Policy

Abstract

Study Design:
In this prospective study, 91 patients who were admitted to our hospital between January 2007 and July 2008 were included. Serum samples from 91 women were stored at -80 °C until use. The cancer group included 27 cases of BC. The benign breast disease group included 24 women with benign breast diseases and control group 37 age-matched apparently healthy women. The data obtained for these three groups of patients was worked out for each serum biomarker (Bc1, Bc2, and Bc3) by using SELDI-TOF individually and compared with each other separately and evaluated statistically.

Results: Bc2 possesses the highest individual diagnostic power. Bc2 was statistically significant in comparison between the malignant disease group, control group and benign disease group. Bc1 was statistically significant in the malignant disease group compared to control group as well as in the benign disease group compared to control group. Thus Bc1, rather than showing malignant progression, it shows tumoral progression or inflammatory process. Bc3 was found upregulated in all malignant cases; however, it was not statistically significant compared to the benign disease group or the control group.

Conclusions: It has been shown that Bc2 profiles might be useful in clinical practice to improve BC diagnosis. However none of the proteomics reach reasonable AUC values for the discrimination of the BC. Additional confirmation in larger and similarly-designed prospective studies is needed to consider of the efficacy of Bc1 and Bc2 in early diagnosis of the BC.   

The article is published online in International Journal of Medical Sciences and is free to access.

Advertisement