Estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/progesterone receptor (PR)-positive invasive ductal carcinoma accounts for ~45 % of invasive breast cancer (BC) diagnoses in the U.S. Despite reductions in BC mortality attributable to mammography screening and adjuvant hormonal therapy, an important challenge remains the development of clinically useful blood-based biomarkers for risk assessment and early detection. The objective of this study was to identify novel protein markers for ER+/PR+ ductal BC. A nested case–control study was conducted within the Women’s Health Initiative observational study. Pre-clinical plasma specimens, collected up to 12.5 months before diagnosis from 121 cases and 121 matched controls, were equally divided into training and testing sets and interrogated using a customized antibody array targeting >2000 proteins. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in matched case versus control signals were observed for 39 candidates in both training and testing sets, and four markers (CSF2, RYBP, TFRC, ITGB4) remained significant after Bonferroni correction (P < 2.03 × 10−5). A multivariate modeling procedure based on elastic net regression with Monte Carlo cross-validation achieved an estimated AUC of 0.75 (SD 0.06). Most candidates did not overlap with those described previously for triple-negative BC, suggesting sub-type specificity. Gene set enrichment analyses identified two GO gene sets as upregulated in cases—microtubule cytoskeleton and response to hormone stimulus (P < 0.05, q < 0.25). This study has identified a pool of novel candidate plasma protein biomarkers for ER+/PR+ ductal BC using pre-diagnostic biospecimens. Further validation studies are needed to confirm these candidates and assess their potential clinical utility for BC risk assessment/early detection.
ER+ breast cancer Blood biomarkers Proteomics Early detection Antibody array
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
This work was principally supported by NIH grant U01CA152637 (C.I.L) and NIH training grant T32CA009168 (M.F.B).
Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer 120:2955–2964. doi:10.1002/cncr.28771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lacombe J, Mangé A, Bougnoux A-C et al (2014) A multiparametric serum marker panel as a complementary test to mammography for the diagnosis of node-negative early-stage breast cancer and DCIS in young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23:1834–1842. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coronell JAL, Syed P, Sergelen K (2012) The current status of cancer biomarker research using tumour-associated antigens for minimal invasive and early cancer diagnostics. J Proteomics 76:102–115. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2012.07.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E et al (2008) Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26:3006–3014. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Li CI, Mirus JE, Zhang Y et al (2012) Discovery and preliminary confirmation of novel early detection biomarkers for triple-negative breast cancer using preclinical plasma samples from the Women’s Health Initiative observational study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:611–618. doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2204-4CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hays J, Hunt JR, Hubbell FA et al (2003) The Women’s Health Initiative recruitment methods and results. Ann Epidemiol 13:S18–S77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Study, The Women’S Health Initiative (1998) Design of the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 19:61–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascal LE, True LD, Campbell DS et al (2008) Correlation of mRNA and protein levels: cell type-specific gene expression of cluster designation antigens in the prostate. BMC Genom 9:246. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-246CrossRefGoogle Scholar