Serum tumor markers in patients with breast cancer

References

• Nabholtz JMA, Reese DM, Lindsay MA, Riva A. Combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2, 169–180 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lumachi F, Ermani M, Brandes AA et al Breast cancer risk in healthy and symptomatic women: results of a multivariate analysis. A case-control study. Domed. Pharmacother. 56, 416–420 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Coleman MP. Trends in breast cancer incidence, survival, and mortality. Lancet 356, 590 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emens LA, Davidson NE. The follow-up of breast cancer. Semin. Oncol 30, 338–348 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Ermani M, Brandes AA, Basso S, Basso U, Boccagli P Predictive value of different prognostic factors in breast cancer recurrences: multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model. Anticancer Res. 21, 4105–4108 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blarney RVV. Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur j SLIT Oncol 25, 344–346 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Nerukar A, Osin P The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease. The role of a new diagnostic technique. Breast Cancer Res. 5,305–308 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 352, 930–942 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabàr L, Duffy SW, Vital( B et al The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86, 449–462 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Given M, Scott M, Mc Grath JP, Given H. The predictive value of tumour markers CA 15-3 and CEA in breast cancer recurrence. Breast9, 277–280 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel J, Eckel R, Kerr J et al The process of metastasisation for breast cancer. Eur. Cancer 39, 1794–1806 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravaioli A, Bagli L, Zucchini A, Monti E Prognosis and prediction of response in breast cancer: the current role of the main biological markers. Cell Prolif 31, 113–126 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes DF, Bast R, Desch CE et al. A tumor marker utility grading system (TMUGS): a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. .1. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 1456–1466 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Stearns V, Yamauchi H, Hayes DE Circulating tumor markers in breast cancer: accepted utilizes and novel prospects. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 52, 239–259 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunel N, Coskun U, Sancak B, Gunel U, Hasdemir 0, Bozkurt S. Clinical importance of serum interleukin-18 and nitric oxide activities in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 95, 663–667 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• •Demonstrates usefulness of serum interleuldn-18 in monitoring patients with breast cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Morelli D, Lazzerini D, Cazzaniga S et al. Evaluation of the balance between angiogenic and anti-angiogenic circulating factors in patients with breast and gastrointestinal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 7, 1221–1225 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Bachelot T, Ray-Coquard I, Menetrier-Caux C, Rastkha M, Duc A, Blay JY. Prognostic value of serum levels of interleukin-6 and of serum and plasma levels of vascular endothelial growth factor in hormone-refractory metastatic breast cancer patients. BE J. Cancer 88, 1721–1726 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Granato AM, Nanni 0, Falcini F et al. Basic fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor serum levels in breast cancer patients and healthy women: useful as diagnostic tools? Breast Cancer Res. 6, R38—R45 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Scanlan MJ, Gout I, Gordon CM et al. Humoral immunity to human breast cancer: antigen definition and quantitative analysis of mRNA expression. Cancer Immun. 1, 4 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raynor M, Stephenson SA, Walsh DC, Pittman KB, Dobrovic A. Optimisation of the RT-PCR detection of immunomagnetically enriched carcinoma cells. BMC Cancer 2, 14 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Markman M. The use of serum tumour markers in the management of patients with malignancies. .1. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol 119, 635–636 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Bidart JM, Thuillier F, Augereau C et al Kinetics of serum tumor marker concentrations and usefulness in clinical monitoring. Clin. Chem. 45, 1695–1707 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiang DT, Greenberg LJ, Kennedy BJ. Tumor marker kinetics in the monitoring of breast cancer. Cancer 65, 193–199 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Buller RE, Berman ML, Bloss JD, Manetta A, Di Saia PJ. Serum CA 125 regression in epithelial ovarian cancer: correlation with reassessment findings and survival. Cynecol Oncol 47, 87–92 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Ruibal Morel A. CEA serum levels in non- neoplastic disease. kit. J. Biol. Markers 7, 160–166 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American Society of Clinical Oncology Expert Panel. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: report of the American Society of Clinical Oncology expert panel. J. Clin. Oncol 14, 2843–2877 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BE Merl 312, 71–72 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• American Society of Clinical Oncology Expert Panel. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J. Clin. Oncol 19, 1865-1878 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Recommended guidelines for the correctuse of serum tumor markers in breast cancer patients.
   Google Scholar
• Jager W Ostrowski M, Kramer S, Lang N. Erlangen tumor marker study on breast cancer. .1. Tumor Marker Oncol 8, 50 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Werner M, Faser C, Silverberg M. Clinical utility and validation of emerging biochemical markers for mammary adenocarcinoma. Clin. Chem. 39, 2386–2396 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Robertson JFR, Pearson D, Price MR, Selby C, Blamey RVV, Howell A. Objective measurement of therapeutic response in breast cancer using tumor markers. BE J. Cancer64, 757–763 (1991).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauro S, Trasatti L, Bordin F et al. Comparison of CEA, MCA, CA 15–3 and CA 27.29 in follow-up and monitoring therapeutic response in breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 19, 3511–3516 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Gion M, Mione R, Nascimben 0 et al The tumour associated antigen CA 15.3 in primary breast cancer. Evaluation of 667 cases. Br. Cancer 63, 809–813 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Peley G, Bezzegh A, Besznyak I et al Correlation of biochemical tumor markers with conventional pathological features in primary breast cancer. kit. J. Biol. Markers 14, 49–51 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinze T, Schurenkamper P, Minguillon C, Lichtenegger W Mammary serum antigen (MSA), CA 59, CA 15-3 and CEA in breast cancer preoperative sensitivity and correlation to prognostic factors. Anticancer Res. 17, 2953–2954 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottini A, Berruti A, Tampellini M et al. Influence of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on serum tumor markers CA 15-3, MCA, CEA, TPS and TPA in breast cancer patients with operable disease. Tumor Biol. 18, 301–310 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lumachi F, Brandes AA, Boccagni P et al Long-term follow-up study in breast cancer patients using serum tumor markers CEA and CA 15-3. Anticancer Res. 19, 4485–4490 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pectasides D, Pavlidis N, Gogou L et al Clinical value of CA 15–3, mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen, tumor polypetide antigen, and carcinoembryonic antigen in monitoring early breast cancer patients. Am. j Gun. 0=1 19, 459–464 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Gion M, Barioli P, Mione R et al Tumor markers in breast cancer follow-up: a potentially useful parameter still awaiting definitive assessment. Ann. 0=1 6\(Suppl. 2), S31—S35 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Martoni A, Zamagni C, Bellanova B et al CEA, MCA, CA 15–3 and CA 549 and their combination in expressing and monitoring metastatic breast cancer: a prospective comparative study. Eur. Cancer31A, 1615–1621 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Brandes AA, Ermani M, Bruno G, Boccagni P. Sensitivity of serum tumor markers CEA and CA 15–3 in breast cancer recurrences and correlation with different prognostic factors. Anticancer Res. 20, 4751–4756 (2000). Established sensitivity of the serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen (CA) 15–3 in patients with breast cancer recurrences.
   Google Scholar
• Eddy DM. Screening for breast cancer. Ann. Int. Med. 111, 389–399 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikorska H, Schuster J, Gold P. Clinical applications of carcinoembryonic antigen. Cancer Detect. Prevent. 12, 321–355 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Lang BA, Kocent A, Nekulova M, Hlavkova J. Three-year follow-up of carcino-embryonal antigen levels in the serum of patients with breast cancer. Neoplarma 31, 79–87 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lokich JJ, Zamcheck N, Lowenstein M. Sequential carcinoembryonic antigen levels in the therapy of metastatic breast cancer: a predictor and monitor of response and relapse. Ann. Intern. Med. 89, 902–906 (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Smith RE. Biochemical detection of recurrent breast cancer. Cancer Detect. Prey. 11, 303–309 (1988).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ballesta AM, Molina R, Filella X, Jo J, Gimenez N. Carcinoembryonic antigen in staging and follow-up of patients with solid tumors. Tumour Biol. 16, 32–41 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Mughal AW, Hortogagyi GN, Fritsche HA, Budzar AU, Yap HY, Blumenscheim GR. Serial plasma carcinoembryonic antigen measurements during treatment of metastatic breast cancer. JAMA 249, 1881–1886 (1983).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenzuela P, Mateos S, Tello E, Lopez-Bueno MJ, Garrido N, Gaspar MJ. The contribution of the CEA marker to CA 15.3 in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur.j Cynaecol. Oncol. 24, 60–62 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Guadagni F, Ferroni P, Carlini S et al A re-evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a serum marker for breast cancer: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin. Cancer Res. 7, 2357–2362 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartei G, Cartei F, Interlandi G et al Preoperative circulating carcinoembryonal antigen in primary breast cancer: review of the literature and personal experience on 150 cases. Breast5, 37–40 (1996).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina R, Filella X, Zanon G et al Prospective evaluation of tumor markers (c-erbB-2 oncoprotein, CEA and CA 15.3) in patients with locoregional breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 23, 1043–1050 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Price MR. High molecular weight epithelial mucins as markers in breast cancer. Eur. Cancer Clin. °rico'. 24, 1799–1804 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KL, Graves CRL, Robertson JFR. Tumour marker measurements in the diagnosis and monitoring of breast cancer. Cancer Brat. Rev 26, 91–102 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Beveridge RA. Review of clinical studies of CA 27.29 in breast cancer management. Int.j Biol. Markers 14, 36–39 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• O'Hanlon DM, Fitzsimons H, Linch J, Tormey S, Malone C, Given HF. Soluble adhesion molecules (E-selectin, ICAM-1 and VCAM-1) in breast carcinoma. Eur Cancer38, 2252–2257 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nishimura R, Nagao K, Miyayama H et al. Higher plasma vascular endothelial growth factor levels correlate with menopause, overexpression of p53, and recurrence of breast cancer. Breast Cancer10, 120–128 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhao J, Yan F, Ju H, Tang J, Qin J. Correlation between serum vascular endothelial growth factor and endostatin levels in patients with breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 204, 87–95 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Ermani M, Brandes AA et al Breast complaints and risk of breast cancer. Population-based study on 2,879 self- selected women and long-term follow-up. Biomed Pharmacother. 56, 88–92 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. j Natl Cancer Inst. Monogi: 22, 79–86 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SN. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examination. N Engl. Med. 338, 1089–1096 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern MJ, O'Hanlon DM, Khalidi AA, Kent PJ, McCarthy PA, Given HF. Mammographic assessment of the symptomatic non-suspicious breast. Am. Surg. 73, 181–184 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Brandes AA, Boccagni P et al Breast cancer detection with 99m-Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy, mammography, and fine-needle aspiration cytology: comparative study in 64 surgically treated patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol 6, 568–571 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M et al Usefulness of 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography in suspected breast cancer and in axillary lymph node metastases. Eur j Surg. Oncol 27, 256–925 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Ferretti G, Povolato M et al Accuracy of technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography and x-ray mammography in premenopausal women with suspected breast cancer. Eur. j Nucl. Med. 28, 1776–1780 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Zucchetta P, Marzola MC et al Positive predictive value of 99mTc sestamibi scintimammography in patients with nonpalpable, mammographically detected, suspicious, breast lesions. Nucl. Med. Commun. 23, 1073–1078 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Douek M, Davidson T, Taylor I. Breast cancer imaging — what are the optimal modalities? Eur. j Surg. Oncol. 24, 573–582 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Esserman L, Hyton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. j Clin. °rico'. 17, 110–119 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crook T, Crossland S, Crompton MR, Osin P, Gusterson BA. p53 mutations in BRCAl-associated familiar breast cancer. Lancet 350, 639–639 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Schlichtholz B, Bouchind'homme B, Pages S et al. p53 mutations in BRCA1-associated familial breast cancer. Lancet 352, 622 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Gion M, Mione R, Leon AE, Dittadi R. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CA 27.29 and CA 15.3 in primary breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 45(5), 630–637 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Hare WS, Tjandra JJ, Russell IS, Collins JP, McKenzie IF. Comparison of mammary serum antigen assay with mammography in patients with breast cancer. Med. J. Aust. 149, 402–406 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Meisel M, Weise J, Schwesinger G, Straube W Cancer associated serum antigen (CASA) levels in patients with breast carcinoma and in three control groups without breast cancer. Arch. Cynecol Obstet. 261, 159–162 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine PL, Duroux MA, Quin RJ et al. CA 15–3, CASA, MSA, and TPS as diagnostic serum markers in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 7i-eat. 34, 245–251 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Sangrajrang S, Arpomwirat W Cheirsilpa A et al. Serum p53 antibodies in correlation to other biological parameters of breast cancer. Cancer Detect. Rev. 27, 182–186 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Basso SMM. Apoptosis: life through planned cellular death. Regulating mechanism, control systems and relations with thyroid diseases. Thyroid 12, 27–34 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• •Reviews data on mutation of the p53 gene and its correlation with human malignancies and mechanism of apoptosis.
   Google Scholar
• Toikkanen S, Helin H, Isola J et al. Prognostic significance of HER-2 oncoprotein expression in breast cancer: a 30-year follow-up. J. Clin. Oncol 10, 1044 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Carney WP, Neumann R, Lipton A, Leitzel K, Ali S, Price CP. Potential clinical utility of serum HER-2/neu oncoprotein concentrations in patients with breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 49, 1579–1598 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Molina R, Jo J, Filella X et al. C-erbB-2 oncoprotein in the sera and tissue of patients with breast cancer. Utility in prognosis. Anticancer Res. 16, 2295–2300 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Mudenda B, Green JA, Green B et al The relationship between serum p53 autoantibodies and characteristics of human breast cancer. BE J. Cancer 69, 1115–1119 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Robertson JFR, Pearson D, Price MR et al. Assessment of four monoclonal antibodies as serum markers in breast cancer. Eur. Cancer26, 1127–1132 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslan N, Serdar M, Deveci S et al Use of CA 15–3, CEA and prolactin for the primary diagnosis of breast cancer and correlation with the prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis. Ann. Nucl. Med. 14, 395–399 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Safi F, Kohler I, Röttinger E, Beger HG. The value of the tumor marker CA 15–3 in diagnosing and monitoring breast cancer. A comparative study with carcinoembryonic antigen. Cancer3, 574–582 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Pirolo F, Pacini P, Borsotti M et al The role of CA 15-3 and MCA monoclonal antibody assay in the detection of primary and recurrent breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 11, 729–732 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haagensen D, Mazoujian G, Holder W Kister S, Wells S. Evaluation of a breast cyst fluid protein detectable in the plasma of breast carcinoma patients. Ann. Surg. 185, 279–285 (1977).
   Google Scholar
• Fanger GR, Houghton RL, Retter MW et al. Detection of mammoglobin in the sera of patients with breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 23, 212–221 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Colomer R, Ruibal A, Genolla J et al Circulating CA 15–3 levels in the postsurgical follow-up of breast cancer patients and in non-malignant diseases. Breast Cancer Res. Brat. 13, 123–133 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Isola J, Holli K, Oksa H, Teramoto Y, Kallioniemi OR Elevated erbB2 oncoprotein levels in preoperative and follow-up serum samples define an aggressive disease course in patients with breast cancer. Cancer73, 652–658 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merendino RA, Gangemi S, Ruello A et al Serum levels of interleukin-18 and sICAM-1 in patients affected by breast cancer: preliminary considerations. int. J. Markers.16, 126–129 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Matsuura N, Narita T, Mitsuoka C et al. Increased concentration of soluble E-selectin in the sera of breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 17, 1367–1372 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frenette PS, Thirlwell MP, Thompson DMP, Joseph L, Shuster J. The diagnostic value of CA 27.29, CA 15–3, mucin-like carcinoma antigen, carcinoembryogenic antigen and CA 19–9 in breast and gastrointestinal malignancies. Tumour Biol. 15, 247–254 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Chan DW, Beveridge RA, Muss M et al Use of truquant BR radioimmunoassay for early detection of breast cancer recurrence in patients with stage II and stage III disease. Clin. Oncol 15, 2322–2328 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miserez AR, Ilknur G, Muller-Brand J et al Clinical value of a mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen in monitoring breast cancer patients in comparison with CA 15–3. Eur.j Cancer27, 126–131 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Beveridge RA, Chan DW, Bruzek D et al A new biomarker in monitoring breast cancer: CA 549. Clin. Oncol 6, 1815–1821 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Silver HKB, Archibald BL, Ragaz J, Coldman AJ. Relative operating characteristic analysis and group modeling for tumor markers: comparison of CA 15-3, carcinoembryonic antigen, and mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen in breast carcinoma. Cancer Res. 51, 1904–1909 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterlin M, Bussen S, Trott S, Caffier H. Predictive value of CEA and CA 15-3 in the follow-up of invasive breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 19, 2567–2570 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina R, Jo J, Zanön G et al Utility of C-erbB-2 in tissue and in serum in the early diagnosis of recurrence in breast cancer patients: comparison with carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 15.3. Br. Cancer74, 1126–1131 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Colomer R, Ruibal A, Salvador L. Circulating tumor marker levels in advanced breast carcinoma correlate with the extent of metastatic disease. Cancer 64, 1674–1681 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Tampellini M, Berruti A, Gerbino A et al Relationship between CA 15-3 serum levels and disease extent predicting overall survival of breast cancer patients with new diagnosed metastatic disease. BE I Cancer 75, 698–702 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Alessandro R, Roselli M, Ferroni P et al Serum tissue polipeptide specific antigen a complementary tumor marker to CA 15–3 in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 7i-eat. 68, 9–19 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Molina R, Gion M. Use of tumour markers in the detection of recurrent breast cancer. Breast7, 187–189 (1998).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouillet JP, Dufour F, Lemamy G et al Increased cathepsin D level in the serum of patients with metastatic breast carcinoma detected with a specific pro-cathepsin D immunoassay. Cancer 79, 2132–2136 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tandon AK, Clarck GM, Chamnes GC et al Cathepsin D and prognosis in breast cancer. N Engl. I Med. 322, 297–302 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adravanis A, Scorilas A, Loukeri A et al. Cathepsin D may help in discriminate node-negative breast cancer patients at risk for local-regional recurrence. Anticancer Res. 18, 2885–2890 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scorilas A, Trangas T, Yotis J, Paters C, Talieri M. Determination of c-myc amplification and overexpression in breast cancer patients: evaluation of its prognostic value against c-erbB-2, cathepsin-D and clinicopathological characteristics using univariate and multivariate analysis. BE J. Cancer81, 1385–1391 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Ardavanis A, Gerakini F, Amanatidou A et al. Relationship between cathepsin-D, pS2 protein and hormonal receptors in breast cancer cytosols: inconsistency with their established prognostic significance. Anticancer Res. 17,3665–3669 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maemura M, lino Y, Yokoe T et al Serum concentrations of hepatocyte growth factor in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 126,215–220 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sliutz G, Tempfer C, Obermair A, Dadak C, Kainz C. Serum evaluation of basic FGF in breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 15,2675–2677 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Hebbar M, Revillion F, Louchez MM et al The relationship between concentrations of circulating soluble E-selectin and clinical, pathological, and biological features in patients with breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 4,373–380 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riisbro R, Christensen IJ, Piironen T et al Prognostic significance of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor in serum and cytosol of tumor tissue from patients with primary breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 8,1132-1141 (2002). iii Stephens RW, Pedersen AN, Nielsen HJ et al ELISA determination of soluble urokinase receptor in blood from healthy donors and cancer patients. Clin. Chem. 43, 1868–1876 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Janicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C et al Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor Type 1.1 Natl Cancer Inst. 93,913-920 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Demonstrates efficacy of urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor Type 1 in identifying node-negative, high-risk breast cancer patients.
   Google Scholar
• Grondahl-Hansen J, Hilsenbeck SG, Christensen IJ, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Brunner N. Prognostic significance of PM-1 and uPA in cytosolic extracts obtained from node-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 7irat. 43,153-163 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Duggan C, Kennedy S, Kramer MD et al Plasminogen activator inhibitor Type 2 in breast cancer. BE J. Cancer 76,622–627 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Hayes DE Tumor markers for breast cancer. Ann. arca 4,807–819 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Joseph E, Hyacinthe M, Gary H et al. Evaluation of an intensive strategy for follow-up and surveillance of primary breast cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol 5,522–528 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarbro JW, Page DL, Fielding LP, Partridge EE, Murphy GP. American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference. Cancer 86, 2436–2446 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Pronk LC, Stoter G, van Putten WLJ, de Wit R. The correlation of CA 15–3 and TPS with tumor course in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol 123,128–132 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Kiang DT, Greenberg LJ, Kennedy BJ. Tumor marker kinetics in the monitoring of breast cancer. Cancer65,193–199 (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Leitzel K, Teramoto Y, Konrad K et al. Elevated serum c-erbB-2 antigen levels and decreased response to hormone therapy of breast cancer. j Clin. Oncol 13, 1129–1135 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Ali SM, Leitzel K, Chinchilli VM et al Relationship of serum HER-2/neu and serum CA 15–3 in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 48,1314-1320 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Sölétomos G, Schioler V, Nielsen D et al Interpretation of results for tumor markers based on analytical imprecision and biological variation. Clin. Chem. 39, 22077–22083 (1993).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser CG. The application of theoretical goals based on biological variation data in proficiency testing. Arch. Farhat. Lab. Merl 112,404–415 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumachi F, Polistina F, Boccagni P et al Clinical value of serum markers in breast neoplasm: 5-year follow-up. Breast 6, 328–329 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina R, Jo J, Filella X et al. C-erbB-2 CEA and CA 15.3 serum levels in the early diagnosis of recurrence in breast cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 19,2551-2556 (1999).
   Google Scholar