Breast Neoplasms: Sölétormos G

Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, Lilja H, Brünner N, Chan DW, Babaian R, Bast RC, Dowell B, Esteva FJ, Haglund C, Harbeck N, Hayes DF, Holten-Andersen M, Klee GG, Lamerz R, Looijenga LH, Molina R, Nielsen HJ, Rittenhouse H, Semjonow A, Shih IeM, Sibley P, Sölétormos G, Stephan C, Sokoll L, Hoffman BR, Diamandis EP, Anonymous00039. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #19042984 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. METHODS: Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites--testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian--were critically reviewed. RESULTS: For testicular cancer, alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. alpha-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 microg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node-negative patients. CA15-3/BR27-29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.

Molina R, Barak V, van Dalen A, Duffy MJ, Einarsson R, Gion M, Goike H, Lamerz R, Nap M, Sölétormos G, Stieber P. · Laboratory of Biochemistry, Hospital Clinic, Medical School, Barcelona, Spain. · Tumour Biol. · Pubmed #16254457 No free full text.

Abstract: Recommendations are presented for the routine clinical use of serum and tissue-based markers in the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. Their low sensitivity and specificity preclude the use of serum markers such as the MUC-1 mucin glycoproteins (CA 15.3, BR 27.29) and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. However, serial measurement of these markers can result in the early detection of recurrent disease as well as indicate the efficacy of therapy. Of the tissue-based markers, measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors is mandatory in the selection of patients for treatment with hormone therapy, while HER-2 is essential in selecting patients with advanced breast cancer for treatment with Herceptin (trastuzumab). Urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 are recently validated prognostic markers for lymph node-negative breast cancer patients and thus may be of value in selecting node-negative patients that do not require adjuvant chemotherapy.

Sölétormos G. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital. · Dan Med Bull. · Pubmed #11767127 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Sölétormos G, Bach F. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, Helsevej 2, DK-3400 Hillerød, Denmark. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #11325905 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Sölétormos G, Schiøler V. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, DK-2700 Copenhagen, Denmark. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #10926890 links to  free full text

Abstract: It is time-consuming to process and compare the clinical and marker information registered during monitoring of breast cancer patients. To facilitate the assessment, we developed a computer program for interpreting consecutive measurements. The intraindividual biological variation, the analytical precision profile, the cutoff limit, and the detection limit for each marker are entered and stored in the program. The assessment procedure for marker signals considers the analytical and biological variation of the applied markers. The software package contains a database that can store the interpretation of the measurements as evaluation codes together with patient demographics, information about treatment type, dates for treatment periods, control periods, and evaluation codes for clinical activity of disease. The consecutive concentrations for a patient are imported temporarily into the program from outside sources and presented graphically. Marker concentrations to be compared are selected with the computer mouse and the significance of the difference is calculated by the program. The program has an option for calculating the lead time of marker signals vs clinical information. The program facilitates the monitoring of individual breast cancer patients with tumor marker measurements. It may also be implemented in trials investigating the utility of potential new markers in breast cancer as well as in other malignancies.

Sölétormos G, Nielsen D, Schiøler V, Mouridsen H, Dombernowsky P. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, Helsevej 2, DK-3400 Hillerød, Denmark. · Eur J Cancer. · Pubmed #14962712 No free full text.

Abstract: The ability of the tumour markers Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA), and Tissue Polypeptide Antigen (TPA) to signal progression in breast cancer patients was investigated in this study. Marker interpretation considered the analytical variation, intra-individual biological variation, and the rate of increase. Patient cohorts were as follows: (A) 90 stage II breast cancer patients who were monitored postoperatively, (B) 204 recurrent breast cancer patients who were monitored during first-line chemotherapy, and (C) 112 patients who were monitored during the time period after first-line chemotherapy. The sensitivity for progression was 44% (cohort A), 69% (cohort B), and 68% (cohort C) without any false progression signals. Marker lead-times exceeded 3 months in 20% (cohort A) and 27% (cohort C) of patients. Marker lead-times were 1-6 months among 33% of the patients receiving first-line chemotherapy (cohort B). Trials are necessary to determine whether tumour marker-guided therapy has any prognostic impact. The data suggest that tumour marker information may be used to stop ineffective treatments and reduce unnecessary adverse effects.

Sölétormos G, Petersen PH, Nielsen D. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, Helsevej 2, DK 3400 Hillerød, Denmark. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #11673375 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Sölétormos G, Petersen PH, Dombernowsky P. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. · Clin Chem Lab Med. · Pubmed #10952230 No free full text.

Abstract: The variability of the tumor markers cancer antigen (CA) 15.3, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) during steady state concentrations and the rate of increase during progression is described. One hundred and ninety-two patients were monitored during first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer and during follow-up. Blood specimens were sampled approximately every four weeks. Steady state concentrations were registered for 77 (CA 15.3), 96 (CEA), and 127 (TPA) patients with below cutoff level values and for 28 (CA 15.3), 25 (CEA), and 11 (TPA) patients with above cutoff level values. Clinical and marker progression was registered for 75 (CA 15.3), 62 (CEA), and 57 (TPA) patients. The coefficients of total variation of steady state concentrations (comprising the intra- and interassay analytical imprecision and the within subject biological variation) were higher below (14.9% CA 15.3, 15.4% CEA, 25.9% TPA) than above cutoffs (9.6% CA 15.3,6.0% CEA, 19.9% TPA). The variability was similar for CA 15.3 and CEA but higher for TPA. During progression the rates of increase in concentrations were similar for CA 15.3 (0.0257) and CEA (0.0214) and lower than for TPA (0.0346). Our data indicate that criteria for assessment of sequential tumor marker concentrations should consider the marker in question, the steady state variability, the cutoff value, and the rate of increase during disease progression.

Sölétormos G, Hyltoft Petersen P, Dombernowsky P. · Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2720 Copenhagen, Denmark. · Clin Chem. · Pubmed #10894837 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: We investigated the utility of computer simulation models for performance comparisons of different tumor marker assessment criteria to define progression or nonprogression of metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Clinically relevant values for progressive cancer antigen 15.3 and carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations were combined with representative values for background variations in a computer simulation model. Fifteen criteria for assessment of longitudinal tumor marker data were obtained from the literature and computerized. Altogether, 7200 different patients, each based on 50 measurements, were simulated. With a sampling interval of 4 weeks, the monitoring period for each event was approximately 3.8 years. RESULTS: Modulation of the background variation, the starting concentrations, and the cutoffs enabled identification of criteria that were robust against false-positive signals of progression. CONCLUSIONS: The computer simulation model is a fast, effective, and inexpensive approach for comparing the diagnostic potential of assessment criteria during clinically relevant conditions of steady-state and progressive disease. The model systems can be used to generate tumor marker assessment criteria for a variety of malignancies and to compare and optimize their diagnostic performance.

Sölétormos G, Bach F. · No affiliation provided · Clin Chem Lab Med. · Pubmed #11341753 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.