Cargando…
Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer?
BACKGROUND: Because screening mammography for breast cancer is less effective for premenopausal women, we investigated the feasibility of a diagnostic blood test using serum proteins. METHODS: This study used a set of 98 serum proteins and chose diagnostically relevant subsets via various feature-se...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696469/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-164 |
_version_ | 1782168271626174464 |
---|---|
author | Jesneck, Jonathan L Mukherjee, Sayan Yurkovetsky, Zoya Clyde, Merlise Marks, Jeffrey R Lokshin, Anna E Lo, Joseph Y |
author_facet | Jesneck, Jonathan L Mukherjee, Sayan Yurkovetsky, Zoya Clyde, Merlise Marks, Jeffrey R Lokshin, Anna E Lo, Joseph Y |
author_sort | Jesneck, Jonathan L |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Because screening mammography for breast cancer is less effective for premenopausal women, we investigated the feasibility of a diagnostic blood test using serum proteins. METHODS: This study used a set of 98 serum proteins and chose diagnostically relevant subsets via various feature-selection techniques. Because of significant noise in the data set, we applied iterated Bayesian model averaging to account for model selection uncertainty and to improve generalization performance. We assessed generalization performance using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The classifiers were able to distinguish normal tissue from breast cancer with a classification performance of AUC = 0.82 ± 0.04 with the proteins MIF, MMP-9, and MPO. The classifiers distinguished normal tissue from benign lesions similarly at AUC = 0.80 ± 0.05. However, the serum proteins of benign and malignant lesions were indistinguishable (AUC = 0.55 ± 0.06). The classification tasks of normal vs. cancer and normal vs. benign selected the same top feature: MIF, which suggests that the biomarkers indicated inflammatory response rather than cancer. CONCLUSION: Overall, the selected serum proteins showed moderate ability for detecting lesions. However, they are probably more indicative of secondary effects such as inflammation rather than specific for malignancy. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2696469 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26964692009-06-16 Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? Jesneck, Jonathan L Mukherjee, Sayan Yurkovetsky, Zoya Clyde, Merlise Marks, Jeffrey R Lokshin, Anna E Lo, Joseph Y BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Because screening mammography for breast cancer is less effective for premenopausal women, we investigated the feasibility of a diagnostic blood test using serum proteins. METHODS: This study used a set of 98 serum proteins and chose diagnostically relevant subsets via various feature-selection techniques. Because of significant noise in the data set, we applied iterated Bayesian model averaging to account for model selection uncertainty and to improve generalization performance. We assessed generalization performance using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The classifiers were able to distinguish normal tissue from breast cancer with a classification performance of AUC = 0.82 ± 0.04 with the proteins MIF, MMP-9, and MPO. The classifiers distinguished normal tissue from benign lesions similarly at AUC = 0.80 ± 0.05. However, the serum proteins of benign and malignant lesions were indistinguishable (AUC = 0.55 ± 0.06). The classification tasks of normal vs. cancer and normal vs. benign selected the same top feature: MIF, which suggests that the biomarkers indicated inflammatory response rather than cancer. CONCLUSION: Overall, the selected serum proteins showed moderate ability for detecting lesions. However, they are probably more indicative of secondary effects such as inflammation rather than specific for malignancy. BioMed Central 2009-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2696469/ /pubmed/19476629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-164 Text en Copyright ©2009 Jesneck et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Jesneck, Jonathan L Mukherjee, Sayan Yurkovetsky, Zoya Clyde, Merlise Marks, Jeffrey R Lokshin, Anna E Lo, Joseph Y Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title | Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title_full | Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title_fullStr | Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title_full_unstemmed | Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title_short | Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
title_sort | do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696469/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-164 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jesneckjonathanl doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT mukherjeesayan doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT yurkovetskyzoya doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT clydemerlise doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT marksjeffreyr doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT lokshinannae doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer AT lojosephy doserumbiomarkersreallymeasurebreastcancer |