Dataset Information

Endo180 modulation by bisphosphonates and diagnostic accuracy in metastatic breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Endo180 (CD280; MRC2; uPARAP)-dependent collagen remodelling is dysregulated in primary tumours and bone metastasis. Here, we confirm the release and diagnostic accuracy of soluble Endo180 for diagnosing metastasis in breast cancer (BCa).

Methods

Endo180 was quantified in BCa cell conditioned medium and plasma from BCa patients stratified according to disease status and bisphosphonate treatment (n=88). All P-values are from two-sided tests.

Results

Endo180 is released by ectodomain shedding from the surface of MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 BCa cell lines. Plasma Endo180 was significantly higher in recurrent/metastatic (1.71±0.87; n=59) vs early/localised (0.92±0.37; n=29) BCa (P<0.0001). True/false-positive rates for metastasis classification were: 85%/50% for the reference standard, CA 15-3 antigen (28 U ml(-1)); ≤97%/≥36% for Endo180; and ≤97%/≥32% for CA 15-3 antigen+Endo180. Bisphosphonate treatment was associated with reduced Endo180 levels in BCa patients with bone metastasis (P=0.011; n=42). True/false-positive rates in bisphosphonate-naive patients (n=57) were: 68%/45% for CA 15-3 antigen; ≤95%/≥20% for Endo180; and ≤92%/≥21% for CA 15-3 antigen+Endo180.

Conclusion

Endo180 is a potential marker modulated by bisphosphonates in metastatic BCa.

SUBMITTER: Palmieri C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3553530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis.Materials and methodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies.ResultsTwenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ConclusionUse of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.