Review of Clinical Studies of CA 27.29 in Breast Cancer Management

Potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for breast cancer: A compiled review

Breast cancer is one of the major reason for death of women worldwide. As per the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) statistics, the number of cases of breast cancer is increasing year by year in many parts of the world. As per the recent global cancer burden figures, in 2020, there were 2.26 million incidences of breast cancer cases and it is one of the main causes of mortality due to cancer in women in the world. Biomarkers of breast cancer would prove to be very beneficial to screen women who are at higher risk and for detection of disease recurrence. Here, studies carried out on biomarkers of breast cancer and susceptibility to the disease have been reviewed. Various databases like Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and PubMed have been used for searching and majorly literature from the last 10 years have been considered. Potential biomarkers of breast cancer including blood based angiogenic factors, glycoprotein-based biomarkers, hormone receptor biomarkers and other biomarkers that were identified from various studies have been summarized.

Circulating Biomarkers in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer management has progressed immensely over the decades, but the disease is still a major source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Even with enhanced imaging detection and tissue biopsy capabilities, disease can progress on an ineffective treatment before additional information is obtained through standard methods of response evaluation, including the RECIST 1.1 criteria, widely used for assessment of treatment response and benefit from therapy.⁶ Circulating biomarkers have the potential to provide valuable insight into disease progression and response to therapy, and they can serve to identify actionable mutations and tumor characteristics that can direct therapy. These biomarkers can be collected at higher frequencies than imaging or tissue sampling, potentially allowing for more informed management. This review will evaluate the roles of circulating biomarkers in breast cancer, including the serum markers Carcinoembryonic antigen CA15-3, CA27-29, HER2 ECD, and investigatory markers such as GP88; and the components of the liquid biopsy, including circulating tumor cells, cell free DNA/DNA methylation, circulating tumor DNA, and circulating microRNA.

Altered glycosylation in cancer: A promising target for biomarkers and therapeutics

Glycosylation is a well-regulated cell and microenvironment specific post-translational modification. Several glycosyltransferases and glycosidases orchestrate the addition of defined glycan structures on the proteins and lipids. Recent advances and systemic approaches in glycomics have significantly contributed to a better understanding of instrumental roles of glycans in health and diseases. Emerging research evidence recognized aberrantly glycosylated proteins as the modulators of the malignant phenotype of cancer cells. The Cancer Genome Atlas has identified alterations in the expressions of glycosylation-specific genes that are correlated with cancer progression. However, the mechanistic basis remains poorly explored. Recent researches have shown that specific changes in the glycan structures are associated with 'stemness' and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition of cancer cells. Moreover, epigenetic changes in the glycosylation pattern make the tumor cells capable of escaping immunosurveillance mechanisms. The deciphering roles of glycans in cancer emphasize that glycans can serve as a source for the development of novel clinical biomarkers. The ability of glycans in intervening various stages of tumor progression and the biosynthetic pathways involved in glycan structures constitute a promising target for cancer therapy. Advances in the knowledge of innovative strategies for identifying the mechanisms of glycan-binding proteins are hoped to hold great potential in cancer therapy. This review discusses the fundamental role of glycans in regulating tumorigenesis and tumor progression and provides insights into the influence of glycans in the current tactics of targeted therapies in the clinical setting.

Protein glycosylation in cancer

Neoplastic transformation results in a wide variety of cellular alterations that impact the growth, survival, and general behavior of affected tissue. Although genetic alterations underpin the development of neoplastic disease, epigenetic changes can exert an equally significant effect on neoplastic transformation. Among neoplasia-associated epigenetic alterations, changes in cellular glycosylation have recently received attention as a key component of neoplastic progression. Alterations in glycosylation appear to not only directly impact cell growth and survival but also facilitate tumor-induced immunomodulation and eventual metastasis. Many of these changes may support neoplastic progression, and unique alterations in tumor-associated glycosylation may also serve as a distinct feature of cancer cells and therefore provide novel diagnostic and even therapeutic targets.

The sweet and sour of serological glycoprotein tumor biomarker quantification

Aberrant and dysregulated protein glycosylation is a well-established event in the process of oncogenesis and cancer progression. Years of study on the glycobiology of cancer have been focused on the development of clinically viable diagnostic applications of this knowledge. However, for a number of reasons, there has been only sparse and varied success. The causes of this range from technical to biological issues that arise when studying protein glycosylation and attempting to apply it to practical applications. This review focuses on the pitfalls, advances, and future directions to be taken in the development of clinically applicable quantitative assays using glycan moieties from serum-based proteins as analytes. Topics covered include the development and progress of applications of lectins, mass spectrometry, and other technologies towards this purpose. Slowly but surely, novel applications of established and development of new technologies will eventually provide us with the tools to reach the ultimate goal of quantification of the full scope of heterogeneity associated with the glycosylation of biomarker candidate glycoproteins in a clinically applicable fashion.

Organ Specific Tumor Markers: What's New?

Tumor markers are molecules produced in the body in response to cancer. An ideal tumor marker should have high sensitivity and specificity, should be cheap, and should be easily detected in body fluids. Identification of novel markers is important and it is expected that with the advent of newer technologies, more reliable markers will be discovered. This review discusses the currently available tumor markers for different malignancies.

[Circulating proteinic biomarkers and breast cancer]

Circulating proteinic biomarkers are secreted by tumor cells or by their environmental cells and they have a variable specificity. In case of breast cancer, carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) was for a long time the only circulating biomarker used. Nowadays, the most useful biomarkers measure circulating levels of fragments of MUC1-polymorphic epithelial mucin (MUC1-PEM): cancer antigen (CA) 15.3, mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen (MCA), CA 27-29, CA 549... They are useful for general disease follow-up. Other circulating markers belonging to keratins (tissue polypeptide antigen, TPA, TPS or Cyfra 21.1) are correlated with proliferative activity of breast tumors. More recently, the measure of the c-erb B2 circulating part (extra cellular domain, ECD) was proposed as a prognostic biomarker for breast tumors with c-erb B2 overexpression. Moreover, the determination of urinary level of trefoil factor1 (PS2-TFF1) might be useful for the follow-up of hormonodependent breast cancers. The present review describes the clinical interest of these different circulating biomarkers in case of breast cancer, emphasizing their biological characteristics.

2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To update the 1997 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials.

OPTIONS

Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and CA 15-3, CA 27.29 was also considered among the serum tumor markers for breast cancer.

OUTCOMES

In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost-effectiveness) were used.

EVIDENCE

A computerized literature search from 1994 to March 1999 was performed.

VALUES

The same values for use, utility, and levels of evidence were used by the committee.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

The same benefit, harms, and costs were used.

RECOMMENDATION

Changes were recommended (see Appendix).

VALIDATION

The updated recommendations were validated by external review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO's Board of Directors.

SPONSOR

American Society of Clinical Oncology.

CA27.29: a valuable marker for breast cancer management. A confirmatory multicentric study on 603 cases

Recently, a fully automated method has become commercially available to measure the MUC-1-associated antigen CA27.29. The present investigation was performed in order to compare CA27.29 and CA15.3 in a wide series of patients affected with breast cancer. Overall, 603 cases with breast cancer and 194 healthy controls were investigated. Patients were enrolled in 4 institutions, while assays were performed in one laboratory. CA27.29 was measured by the ACS:180 BR assay (Bayer Diagnostics) and CA15.3 by the AxSYM (Abbott Laboratories). An excellent correlation was found between the results obtained by the two methods. The two markers showed comparable results in healthy controls, with higher levels in post-menopausal than in pre-menopausal subjects. The markers were significantly higher in primary breast cancer than in controls. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of the two tests were comparable, but CA27.29 showed better sensitivity in cases with low antigen concentrations (below the cut-off point). Accordingly, when comparing each test in different stage categories, significance levels of the differences were higher for CA27.29 than for CA15.3 for all T categories versus healthy controls, for pT1 versus pT2, for all N categories versus healthy controls and for node-negative versus N1-3 patients. From the results of the present study, that has been performed on samples taken at diagnosis and prior to any treatment from the widest series of patients with primary breast cancer reported so far, we can draw the following conclusions: CA27.29 provides comparable results to CA15.3; CA27.29 seems more sensitive than CA15.3 to limited variations of tumour extension; however, it cannot help clinicians in distinguishing stage I patients from stage II patients. However, from the point of view of clinical decision making, CA27.29 provides comparable results to CA15.3. CA27.29 is therefore suitable for routine use in the management of patients with breast cancer.