scholarly journals Sex Steroid Hormones in Serum and Tissue of Benign and Malignant Breast Tumor Patients

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Essam A. Mady ◽  
Ezz El-Din H. Ramadan ◽  
Alaa A. Ossman

The ability of breast tumors to synthesize sex steroid hormones is well recognized and their local production is thought to play a role in breast cancer development and growth. The aim of this study was to estimate local intra-tumoral and circulating levels of Estrone (E1), Estrone Sulfate (E1S), Estradiol (E2), Estriol (E3), and Testosterone (T) in 33 pre- and postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer in comparison to 12 pre- and postmenopausal women with benign breast tumors. The mean levels of the studied sex hormones were higher in serum and tumor tissue of breast cancer women than those with benign breast tumors apart from Testosterone which showed a significant decrease in pre- and postmenopausal women with breast cancer (P< 0.001 for follicular phase,P< 0.001 for luteal phase, andP< 0.001 for postmenopausal). The levels of the five hormones were significantly higher intra-tumoral than in serum of both benign and malignant breast tumor women with E1S as the predominant estrogen. There was only a positive significant correlation between serum and tumor tissue levels of E1(rs= 0.52,P< 0.05 for follicular;rs= 0.63,P< 0.05 for luteal andrs= 0.58,P< 0.05 for postmenopausal) and a significant correlation between serum and tumor tissue of T (rs= 0.64,P< 0.05 for follicular;rs= -0.51,P< 0.05 for luteal andrs= -0.81,P< 0.04 for postmenopausal).

Author(s):  
W. Abdul Hameed ◽  
Anuradha D. ◽  
Kaspar S.

Breast tumor is a common problem in gynecology. A reliable test for preoperative discrimination between benign and malignant breast tumor is highly helpful for clinicians in culling the malignant cells through felicitous treatment for patients. This paper is carried out to generate and estimate both logistic regression technique and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) technique to predict the malignancy of breast tumor, utilizing Wisconsin Diagnosis Breast Cancer Database (WDBC). Our aim in this Paper is: (i) to compare the diagnostic performance of both methods in distinguishing between malignant and benign patterns, (ii) to truncate the number of benign cases sent for biopsy utilizing the best model as an auxiliary implement, and (iii) to authenticate the capability of each model to recognize incipient cases as an expert system.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 6509-6513
Author(s):  
Xin-Hua Lu

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic values of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), ultrasound elastography (UE) and the combination in differentiating benign and malignant breast tumor. Methods: The BI-RADS and UE image features of 248 breast cancer patients (a total of 260 lesions) proved by surgery and pathology from February 2013 to March 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. With the pathologic results as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were calculated for BI-RADS, UE and the combination. On the basis of the sensitivity and specificity, they were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: In all 260 lesions, 71 lesions were benign and 189 were malignant according to UE diagnosis; 50 lesions were benign and 210 were malignant proved by BI-RADS; 55 lesions were benign and 205 were malignant diagnosed by the combination. The sensitivity (86.09%), specificity (61.64%), positive predictive value (85.19%), negative predictive value (63.38%), and accuracy (79.23%) of ultrasound elastography were all less than that of BI-RADS (98.39%, 64.38%, 88.85%, 87.62%, 94.00%) and the combination (99.47%, 73.97%, 92.31%, 90.73%, 98.18%). The areas under the ROC curve for UE, BI-RADS and the combination were respectively 0.746[95%CI(0.673–0.818)], 0.814[95%CI(0.744–0.884)] and 0.867[95%CI(0.805–0.929)]. Conclusion: Ultrasonic BI-RADS can be the first choice for diagnosing breast cancer, with UE as the auxiliary method. The combined application can further improve the diagnosis rate of benign and malignant breast tumor.


Author(s):  
Mustafa Fadhil ◽  
Omar Abdul- Rasheed ◽  
Manwar Al-Naqqash

Background: During tumor progression, circulating monocytes and macrophages are actively recruited into tumors where they alter the tumor microenvironment to accelerate tumor progression. In response to multiple microenvironmental signals from the tumor and stromal cells, macrophages change their functional phenotypes. Based on their function, macrophages are commonly classified into both, classical M1 and alternative M2 macrophages. M2-like tumor-associated macrophages promote breast tumor growth and survival, and may migrate into the peripheral blood. However, the level of circulating M2/M1-like monocyte ratio in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients has not been yet clarified. Aim: To compare peripheral blood M2/M1 monocyte ratio among breast cancer patients, benign breast tumor patients and healthy subjects. Also, to investigate the role of peripheral blood M2/M1 monocyte ratio as a circulating breast cancer tumor marker and to asses the validity of this marker in differentiation between benign and malignant breast tumors. Methods: Flow cytometry technique was used to determine the peripheral blood M2/M1 monocyte ratio in three groups of subjects, i.e. 45 patients with breast cancer, 40 patients with benign breast tumor, and 40 healthy subjects as a control group. The results of carbohydrate antigen15-3 (CA15-3) determination were analyzed comparatively. Results: The peripheral blood M2/M1 monocyte ratio in patients with breast cancer (0.27±0.1) was significantly higher (P<0.001) than that in healthy subjects (0.07±0.05) and than in benign tumor subjects (0.08±0.04). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of peripheral blood M2/M1 monocyte ratio determination was significantly higher (P≤0.001) than that of CA15-3 levels. Conclusion: M2/M1-like monocyte ratio is of a high diagnostic value for breast cancer and is a promising differentiating marker between benign and breast cancer tumor groups.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Seefeld ◽  
S. El Tarhouny ◽  
A.X.C. Fan ◽  
S. Hahn ◽  
W. Holzgreve ◽  
...  

Objectives In order to assess the potential biomolecules for breast cancer, we analyzed in parallel the levels of cell-free glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) and cell-free nucleosomes in serum samples from patients with benign and malignant breast tumors. The levels of cell-free DNA obtained by quantitative PCR were compared with those obtained by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Methods Twenty-three patients with benign breast tumors, 27 patients with breast cancer, and 32 age-matched healthy women were recruited. The amounts of serum nucleosomes were analyzed by ELISA and the levels of cell-free GAPDH were measured by real-time quantitative PCR. The correlation between nucleosome and cell-free GAPDH levels was examined using the Spearman rank test. Results The levels of cell-free GAPDH were significantly higher in the serum samples of patients with benign and malignant breast tumors than in those of the control group (median 37,966 GE/mL, range 3,802–130,104 versus 11,770 GE/mL, range 2,198–73,522, p=0.035 and median 40,698 GE/mL, range 3,644–192,482 versus 11,770 GE/mL range 2,198–73,522, p=0.001). The concentration of cell-free GAPDH correlated significantly with the quantities of nucleosomes in serum samples (r=0.451, p=0.000). There was, however, no significant difference between healthy individuals and women with benign breast tumors or breast cancer in terms of nucleosomes determined by ELISA. Conclusion Our data suggest that the cell-free serum GAPDH DNA assayed by quantitative PCR is a better biomarker than nucleosomes assayed by ELISA in patients with breast tumors.


2006 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriet Johansson ◽  
Bernardo Bonanni ◽  
Frederique Mariette ◽  
Massimiliano Cazzaniga ◽  
Laura Baglietto ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. S66
Author(s):  
J A Cauley ◽  
F Luas ◽  
L H Kuller ◽  
K Stone ◽  
S Cummings

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document