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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jesneck, Jonathan L, Mukherjee, Sayan, Yurkovetsky, Zoya, Clyde, Merlise, Marks, Jeffrey R, Lokshin, Anna E, Lo, Joseph Y
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