Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

CEBP Focus

Autoantibodies in Early Detection of Breast Cancer

Femina Rauf, Karen S. Anderson and Joshua LaBaer
Femina Rauf
Virginia G. Piper Biodesign Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen S. Anderson
Virginia G. Piper Biodesign Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Karen S. Anderson
Joshua LaBaer
Virginia G. Piper Biodesign Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jlabaer@asu.edu
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0331 Published December 2020
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In spite of the progress made in treatment and early diagnosis, breast cancer remains a major public health issue worldwide. Although modern image-based screening modalities have significantly improved early diagnosis, around 15% to 20% of breast cancers still go undetected. In underdeveloped countries, lack of resources and cost concerns prevent implementing mammography for routine screening. Noninvasive, low-cost, blood-based markers for early breast cancer diagnosis would be an invaluable alternative that would complement mammography screening. Tumor-specific autoantibodies are excellent biosensors that could be exploited to monitor disease-specific changes years before disease onset. Although clinically informative autoantibody markers for early breast cancer screening have yet to emerge, progress has been made in the development of tools to discover and validate promising autoantibody signatures. This review focuses on the current progress toward the development of autoantibody-based early screening markers for breast cancer.

See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, “NCI Early Detection Research Network: Making Cancer Detection Possible.”

Introduction

Breast cancer is the leading cancer type among women with over 2 million new cases expected annually worldwide. In 2020, it is estimated over 279 000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and over 42,000 may succumb to the disease (1). Based on recent reports, the death rate for breast cancer has dropped by 40% between 1989 and 2017 (1, 2). Advancement in treatment and early detection has contributed to this decrease in mortality rate (3). This emphasizes the importance of early detection and screening for timely intervention and better therapeutic outcomes. For instance, the 5-year relative survival rate for 44% of patients with breast cancer approaches 100% if diagnosed at stage 1, but decreases to 26% with stage IV (3). In the United States, mammography and physical exams are widely used screening methods for breast cancer (4). For an average-risk woman, screening mammography has the benefit of reducing breast cancer mortality by 40% and thus improving survival (5–8). Although modern screening digital mammography has improved the sensitivity of breast cancer detection (86.9% vs. 78.7% predigital era), it does not detect all breast cancers (9). Cancers in women with high breast density are often obscured by dense breast tissues (10). Some breast carcinomas tend to grow along the normal breast architecture, making them difficult to detect with mammography (8). False-positive results are one of the most common issues encountered in mammography, especially among young women and women with dense breasts, which leads to follow-up studies including biopsies (11, 12). In the global health setting, low and middle-income countries have a lower frequency of mammography as a population-based screening tool due to affordability, inadequate resources, lack of medical education, and various other logistical limitations. Therefore, there is an intense effort in the search for simple, rapid, and cost-effective blood-based biomarkers for early detection of breast cancers which can be used in parallel with mammography. Many circulating biomarkers, including proteins, autoantibodies (AAb), circulating tumor cells, microRNAs, circulating tumor DNA, and exosomes, have been investigated as promising tools to fill this clinical niche (13–17). This review will mainly focus on the development and progress made on tumor-specific AAbs for diagnosis and early detection of breast cancer.

Autoantibodies as Potential Biomarkers

Cancers can induce an immunologic response resulting in the production of AAbs directed against self-antigens. Tumor-associated antigens can have abnormal structures, altered protein expression levels, or changes in posttranslational modifications (glycosylation, acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, etc.) that are no longer recognized as “self” by the immune system, thus triggering the production of AAbs (18–20). These AAbs can be exploited as sensors to monitor disease-related proteomic changes to develop useful diagnostic assays. AAbs possess many attractive features as a diagnostic marker for early detection. First, compared with other serum proteins, AAbs are highly stable and less prone to proteolysis, making sample processing much easier (21). Second, AAbs may show persistent response over time because they are known to circulate for extended periods as opposed to tumor antigens. Tumor antigens suffer from low concentrations and brief circulation time due to degradation and rapid clearance (21, 22). Third, AAbs are detectable in archived samples and have well-characterized secondary reagents for easy identification, facilitating the development of cost-effective screening tools easily adaptable in a clinical setting. Finally, tumor AAbs are produced early in the tumorigenesis process and have been detected several years before the development of clinical symptoms (23–25). To be clinically useful as an early diagnostic marker, the AAbs should allow clear discrimination against the healthy and disease state preferably at the early stages of cancer (22). Moreover, the screening AAbs should be able to distinguish breast cancer patients with high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, and therefore quantitative parameters should be established to clearly discriminate positive and negative tests (26). A better way to determine if selected AAbs will make a good early screening marker is to select a series of cutoff values for the assay and determine the specificity and sensitivity. This can be plotted in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the diagnostic parameters including the area under the ROC curve (AUC) to establish a cutoff value for positivity for early screening (26). The ideal AUC would be 1.0, and the ideal specificity and sensitivity values would each be 100%. But such numbers are virtually never achievable in real circumstances. In most cases, there is a tradeoff between specificity and sensitivity, wherein finding conditions to increase one often diminishes the other. This often depends on the intended application. If the test is to be used as a screening assay, where the greatest cost of error is the missed detection of disease, then optimizing sensitivity is paramount. This is especially true if another test, such as an imaging study, can provide specificity in a second round. In the case of AAbs, it is sometimes possible to combine multiple AAbs, each having good specificity, to improve sensitivity while still maintaining high specificity. Also, it is highly recommended that all AAb studies follow the five-phase schema and the Prospective Sample Collection Retrospective Evaluation (ProBE) guidelines to vigorously evaluate new diagnostic and screening markers before implementing them as clinical tools (27, 28).

Methods to Identify and Validate Autoantibodies in Breast Cancer

During the early years, AAb discovery studies were performed on small-scale, targeting just a few tumor antigens. Many studies lacked a systemic approach and failed to validate markers beyond the discovery stage. To develop a successful AAb-based screening tool for breast cancer, it is essential to have technologies capable of screening AAbs for thousands of antigens at the initial phase of malignancy. Because many single AAbs show poor performance as screening tools, it is critical to have high-throughput assays at the discovery phase to find complex panels of AAbs with suitable features to develop useful tools for early diagnosis (29, 30). High-throughput approaches can process a large number of patient sera rapidly and identify many tumor-associated AAbs at the discovery phase, which is important in the process of developing reliable assays. In recent years, new technologies were developed, facilitating the discovery of novel AAb markers in high-throughput (31–34).

Phage display–based methods

Phage display-based microarray approaches have emerged as a powerful method to identify AAb profiles in cancers (33, 35, 36). Phage display evolved as a high-throughput modification of the SEREX (Serological Screening of cDNA Expression Library) method, which resulted in the identification of over 2,000 tumor-associated antigens (37–39). In SEREX, total RNA is isolated from tumor cells or tissues to construct a cDNA library. The cDNA library is inserted into the phage vectors, and proteins are expressed in E.coli. The primary discovery is performed by transferring recombinant proteins into nitrocellulose membranes and probing with patient samples. The current phage display strategies avoid the immunoblotting step and instead subject the library to several cycles of affinity selection to enrich phages for specific clones. The enriched clones can then be eluted and propagated and lysates can be printed onto glass slides to develop a phage–protein microarray (33, 40). The array can be used to incubate serum samples from patients to discover novel AAbs (33). The method does not require large volumes of serum and allows screening thousands of antigens. However, frameshifts, truncated protein expression, lack of mammalian posttranslational modifications, bias toward high abundant transcripts, and labor-intensive procedures are drawbacks of this method. Several groups have implemented this technology for AAb discovery in numerous cancers, including breast cancer (33, 35, 36, 41–43). Zhong and colleagues used a phage display strategy to report an AAb panel (ASB-9, SERAC1, and RELT) for early detection of breast cancer (AUC = 0.86; ref. 44). In this study, the authors utilized a breast cancer cDNA T7 phage library to screen 87 breast cancer patients and 87 normal serum samples and showed that the combined panel has a sensitivity of 80% at 100% specificity in predicting breast cancer. However, further validation studies are needed to evaluate its potential for early screening.

Serological proteome analysis

Serological proteome analysis (SERPA) is a technology that combines two-dimensional electrophoresis, Western blotting, and mass spectrometry to identify tumor-associated antigens and autoantibodies (34, 45, 46). In this approach, the proteome from tumor tissues or cancer cell lines is first separated with 2D electrophoresis. Separated proteins are transferred onto a membrane and probed with sera from healthy individuals and cancer patients. The protein spots that specifically react with cancer patient sera are located by superimposing the silver-stained 2D gels with the Western blot. Proteins of interest are extracted from the gel and analyzed by mass spectrometry. SERPA utilizes in vivo–derived tumor-associated antigens to identify AAb profiles. It avoids time-consuming construction of cDNA libraries and identifies tumor-specific posttranslational modifications and various isoforms. However, many proteins are too low in abundance, and only a fraction of proteins are detectable when extracted from cells or tumors. It is also challenging to detect membrane-associated antigen. In general, this method is biased toward abundant proteins. SERPA can only recognize responses against linear epitopes and could be labor intensive to profile large cohorts of serum samples. SERPA has been used as an AAb discovery platform in several cancer types including breast cancer (30, 47–49). Desmetz and colleagues used SERPA to develop an AAb panel with five candidates to discriminate early-stage breast cancer and healthy controls (AUC = 0.73; ref. 30). The authors used both a discovery and validation cohort to develop this panel with 55.2% sensitivity at 87.9% specificity by combining three markers (PPIA, PRDX2, and FKB52) they discovered by SERPA with two other previously reported markers (HSP60 and MUC1) in the literature. However, it needs further validation in larger cohorts of retrospective and prospective studies before clinical development.

Protein microarrays

Protein microarray is an alternate approach to discover AAbs in high throughput. Protein microarrays enable the screening of a large number of antigens with low sample consumption. Several types of protein microarrays can be used for this purpose (50).

Purified recombinant protein arrays

Proteins can be expressed in heterologous systems (insect cells, E. coli, etc.), purified, and then printed on a surface (51, 52). They allow proteome scale screening (∼19,000 human proteins with various isoforms) for AAbs with low sample consumption, albeit requiring proteins to be immobilized on the array substrate. Both known and predicted cancer-related antigens can be immobilized on a single microscopic slide to generate a comprehensive screening array to be assayed with serum and control samples. When protein arrays display consistent levels of protein at each spot, they avoid some of the biases of cDNA libraries. However, purified protein microarrays are costly, labor intensive, and need significant quality control measures to ensure proper functionality and maintain stability. Based on the type of protein expression system used, some proteins immobilized on these arrays may lack posttranslational modifications. E. coli–based protein expression systems are capable of producing large quantities of antigens in a cost-effective manner but fail to incorporate posttranslational modifications. This can be overcome by expressing antigens in human cells.

Native protein arrays

Some AAb discovery studies utilize native protein arrays where human cell or tissue lysates with naturally expressed proteins are captured on a surface or fractionated with separation methods (53, 54). Once probed with patient sera, targets can be identified by mass spectrometry. This method closely mimics the in vivo environment by printing posttranslationally modified antigens. However, it is difficult to control the proper orientation of the proteins during immobilization, and may sterically block protein surfaces. Ladd and colleagues used this method to discover glycolysis and spliceosome AAb signatures from patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer (53). In this study, native protein arrays generated from fractionated MMTV-neu and MCF7 cell lysates were used for discovering immunogenic pathways and autoantibody signatures in breast cancer plasmas. This is an interesting study where they used prediagnostic plasmas from 48 women with ER+/PR+ breast cancer and 65 healthy controls and discovered significant enrichment of proteins in the glycolysis and spliceosome biological pathways. The ROC analysis on the glycolysis gene set (9 proteins) and spliceosome gene set (14 proteins) signatures gave AUCs of 0.68 and 0.73, respectively. They also reported an AUC of 0.77 with 35% sensitivity at 95% specificity for combined signatures. However, this study was limited due to a small sample cohort and requires more validation studies. In a follow-up study, native protein arrays were also used to report autoimmune response signatures associated with the development of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; ref. 55). Katayama and colleagues used a high-density protein array developed from MDA-MB-231 cell lysates to probe serum samples collected before clinical diagnosis of TNBC along with samples collected at the time of diagnosis from participants in the Women's Health Initiative cohort (n = 13 for cases and controls). The proteins that exhibited immunoreactivity in prediagnostic TNBC samples represented major nodes of TP53 and PI3K genes that were commonly mutated in TNBC. The study also reported AAb signatures for cytokeratin proteins associated with a mesenchymal/basal phenotype in prediagnostic human TNBC samples.

Programmable protein arrays

On the other hand, programmable protein microarrays like Nucleic Acid Protein Programmable Arrays (NAPPA) print cDNAs encoding the target genes on the matrix instead of purified proteins (31, 32). The slides can then be incubated with a cell-free protein expression system to transcribe and translate the genes to produce proteins within a few hours and can be captured on to the surface via the aid of fusion tags. This method avoids protein purification and proteins can be expressed just in time, just before probing the array with patient sera, minimizing protein degradation, and maximizing the likelihood of natural folding. Cell-free systems with chaperone proteins assist in producing well-folded functional proteins and proteome scale discovery can be performed for discovering AAbs (29, 56). The proteins are displayed at the same level so the likelihood of measuring AAb against all types of antigen targets is high. It also facilitates the incorporation of posttranslational modifications and allows to monitor AAb responses against both modified and unmodified targets. Anderson and colleagues utilized NAPPA arrays to develop an AAb panel (28 antigens) for early detection of breast cancer with 80.8% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity (AUC = 0.756; ref. 56). This was the first study that used a programmable protein microarray platform for the detection of novel AAb markers with nearly 5,000 proteins displayed on the array. This was also the first serum biomarker panel developed for the discrimination of invasive breast cancer from benign breast disease. This study (discussed in detail under AAb panels) aided in the development of the first CLIA-certified blood-based assay (Videssa Breast) for breast cancer detection (57–59). In 2015, Wang and colleagues used NAPPA arrays to build a 13-AAb panel for the detection of basal-like breast cancers with 33% sensitivity and 98% specificity (AUC = 0.68; ref. 29). The programmable array was constructed with 10,000 antigens, approximately 50% of the human genome. This study also identified AAb markers reported in other studies (TP53, NY-ESO-1).

Glycan arrays

Glycan arrays are high-throughput devices capable of detecting autoantibodies against aberrant glycans (60, 61). Around 1% of human genes undergo glycosylation, a posttranslational modification where carbohydrates are linked to proteins via glycosidic bonds with the aid of enzymes (glycotransferases; ref. 62). When the activity of these enzymes is compromised, it results in the synthesis of aberrant glycans responsible for many diseases including cancer. These unusual glycan structures can trigger an immune response to produce anti-glycan antibodies long before disease onset (63). Some groups have fabricated high-throughput devices where glycan structures are immobilized on glass surfaces to screen for anti-glycan antibodies in patient samples (60, 63, 64). Blixt and colleagues used a glycan array to look for anti-glycan antibodies against Mucin 1 (MUC1) glycopeptides and found cancer-associated glycoforms of MUC1 at higher levels in early-stage breast cancer patients (64).

Validation assays

The AAbs discovered in the discovery phase need to be validated with clinically acceptable assay platforms to determine performance measures. Traditionally, singleplex-enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are the most commonly used platform for validation. Various formats of ELISAs exist, and for AAb validation studies, different groups use different antigenic sources, variable attachment chemistries, and detection methods, which causes difficulty when comparing results. Most ELISA assays use purified recombinant proteins from heterologous expression systems (E.coli, insects) as the antigenic source, which is either adsorbed or captured on to the ELISA plate (30, 44). Antigens expressed from different systems may lack or may show variations in posttranslation modifications. Changes may also occur to the conformational structure of the antigen, affecting the reproducibility of the assay. Some labs use antigen-specific antibodies to capture the antigen of interest from human tumor cells and thereby bypass the need for producing purified antigens (65, 66). RAPID ELISA (rapid antigenic protein in situ display) is another assay adapted from the NAPPA technology that processes a large number of clinical samples against a limited number of antigens during AAb validation (31). Here, cDNAs for the gene of interest can be readily added and proteins can be produced just in time for testing. Antibodies or ligands against a fusion tag can be used to capture the protein on to the ELISA plate obviating protein purification. Bead-based methods such as Luminex-xMAP technology are increasingly popular for AAb validation studies due to multiplexing capabilities (67–69). In these bead-based assays, fluorophore-labeled beads can be coated with antigen-specific capture antibodies to immobilize the antigens on to the surface. It allows simultaneous analysis of serum antibodies against 100 different antigens saving sample consumption, cost, and time, although absorption of antibodies in human sera on beads leads to nonspecific background.

Autoantibodies to Individual Tumor Antigens in Breast Cancer

Tumor-specific AAbs, which have the potential to be used for early screening, have been reported in the sera of breast cancer patients (summarized in Tables 1 and 2). However, only very few have been studied in detail to understand the diagnostic utility in early cancer detection.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

List of individual autoantibodies discussed in this review.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

List of autoantibody panels discussed in this review.

p53 AAbs

p53 is one of the most studied tumor-associated antigens in cancer (70). In healthy cells, wild-type p53 is predominantly present in the nuclei in low concentrations. It plays a key role as a mediator in cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis and is crucial for suppressing uncontrolled cell growth (71). p53 is often mutated in many solid tumors and various reports have shown these mutations can occur during the early stages of cancer development (72). Mutant p53 proteins are more stable with a half-life of several hours compared with wild-type p53, which lasts only a couple of minutes. This causes mutant p53 to accumulate in the nucleus and escape into the cytoplasm, eventually inducing the immune system to generate autoantibodies (73, 74). The earliest report providing evidence for p53 AAbs goes back to 1979 when DeLeo and colleagues reported that the humoral response of mice to some chemically induced tumor cells was directed against the protein p53 (75). A few years later, Crawford and colleagues demonstrated that around 9% of stage 1 and 2 breast cancer patients had p53 autoantibodies in their sera (76). Since then numerous studies have reported the presence of p53 AAbs in various cancers, including breast cancer (77–80). Around 10% to 15% of early-stage breast cancers have detected p53 AAbs (81–84). Several studies have reported a positive correlation between the presence of p53 AAbs and p53 missense mutations and/or accumulation (70, 74). However, as a standalone marker p53, AAbs have low sensitivity for screening (85). Although there is a significant correlation between the anti-p53 AAb levels among healthy controls and cancer patients, the AAb is not specific enough to distinguish one cancer from another. In addition, only around 20% to 40% of patients harboring p53 mutations develop AAbs (70). Patients with similar mutations in similar cancer types could be either positive or negative for p53 AAbs, indicating the influence of other factors in antibody response (70, 86, 87). Therefore, p53 AAbs alone will not be sufficient for early disease screening of breast cancer. Moreover, the association of p53 AAbs has shown conflicting results for different tumor stages of breast cancer. Several studies have reported that the p53 AAb levels do not correlate with the disease stage (88, 89). Others have shown a higher frequency of AAbs in late-stage breast cancers (83, 84). Although p53 alone is less useful as an early screening marker, its discovery has aided in developing AAb panels with better diagnostic characteristics (25, 78).

MUC1 AAbs

MUC1 is a single-pass type 1 transmembrane protein with a heavily glycosylated extracellular domain (90, 91). MUC1 is normally expressed in the cell surface of secretory epithelia including the mammary gland, respiratory, urinary, gastrointestinal, and reproductive tract (92). Mucins are a family of glycoproteins with a high molecular weight with extracellular domains extending up to 200 to 500 nm from the cell surface (90, 91). In healthy tissues, MUC1 protects the epithelia and acts as a barrier against pathogen colonization (90). MUC1 overexpression is observed in more than 90% of breast cancers and frequently appears in other cancers, including pancreatic, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers (92, 93). The MUC1 protein present in tumor cells shows aberrant glycosylation patterns and changes in cellular distribution (94, 95). High expression levels of MUC1 with altered glycan patterns can induce an immune response, which leads to the production of glycoprotein-specific AAbs. In the early 1990s, many groups reported the presence of humoral immune response to MUC1 in patients with benign and malignant breast tumors (96–98). Since then, a number of studies have implicated the usefulness of anti-MUC1 antibodies for early detection of breast cancer (64, 78, 99). By using glycopeptide microarrays with 60mer MUC1 glycopeptides, Blixt and colleagues reported significantly higher levels of MUC1 AAbs in early-stage breast cancer patients (n = 365) than in women with benign breast disease (n = 108) or healthy controls (n = 99; ref. 64). The data reported a sensitivity of 10.6% for MUC1 glycan combinations with 95% specificity. However, a large-scale follow-up study performed by the same group with both discovery (breast cancer patients n = 240, controls n = 273) and validation samples (breast cancer patients n = 431, controls n = 431) showed no difference between the cases and controls (100). This study emphasized the importance of performing independent validation on diagnostic markers. Another study conducted with a population of women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (n = 127) reported lower levels of MUC1 AAbs among the mutation carriers than the healthy controls (101).

HER2/neu AAbs

HER2/neu belongs to the family of epidermal growth factor receptors and plays an important role in cell proliferation (102). Around 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers have amplification or overexpression of HER2 and show more aggressive disease with worse prognosis (103, 104). In 1997, Disis and colleagues reported antibody titers of > 1:100 of HER2/neu antibodies in 11% of breast cancer patients demonstrating a correlation with HER2/neu protein overexpression in the primary tumor (105, 106). In a study reported with patients newly diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer (PBC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), AAbs for HER2 reported a sensitivity of 18% for PBC and 13% for DCIS with 94% specificity (78). In a more recent study, Lu and colleagues used an initial triage set of breast cancer samples collected at the time of treatment (n = 98) with matched controls (n = 98) to measure the AAb response against eight known tumor-associated antigens, which also included HER2 (25). HER2 demonstrated a significant increase in AAb response in cancer patients. When subjected to primary validation (20 breast cancer samples collected at the time of diagnosis along with matched controls) followed with secondary validation (breast cancer samples collected before the time of diagnosis n = 33 with matched controls n = 45), they observed a significantly high serum antibody response for HER2 (AUC = 0.63, P = 0.026) in prediagnostic sera. About 15% of the prediagnostic breast cancer patients were positive for HER2 AAbs. This study was one of the first studies that reported the occurrence of serum AAbs in prediagnostic sera from patients with breast cancer using samples collected using the ProBE guidelines. However, the study was conducted with a small patient cohort and needs to be validated in a larger sample size.

Other markers

Numerous other tumor-associated AAbs (Tables 1 and 2) have been reported as potential markers for early diagnosis of breast cancer. More investigation and validation are needed to evaluate the true clinical potential of these markers (55, 107–115).

Autoantibody Panels for Early Detection of Breast Cancers

Most of the individual autoantibodies identified to date suffer from low clinical sensitivity; hence, they cannot be used for early disease screening. Only a fraction of patients respond to tumor antigens, and no single serum marker exists that can be used for early breast cancer screening. Therefore, to increase the sensitivity for early diagnosis, several groups have developed tailor-made autoantibody panels (Table 2; refs. 29, 30, 56, 85, 116–118). When Chapman and colleagues used seven tumor antigens (p53, c-MYC, HER2, NY-ESO-1, BRCA1, BRCA2, and MUC1) to investigate AAbs in PBC and DCIS patients, sensitivities for individual AAbs varied between 8% and 34% (PBC) and 3% and 23% (DCIS) compared with healthy controls for 91% to 98% specificity (78). However, when used as a panel, 64% of patients with PBC and 45% from DCIS showed elevation of at least one of the six autoantibodies at 85% specificity (78). In another study serum, AAbs detected against a combined panel of five tumor antigens (FKBP52, PPIA, PRDX2, HSP60, and MUC1) accurately discriminated between early-stage breast cancer (AUC = 0.73; 55.2% sensitivity, 87.9% specificity) and carcinoma in situ (AUC = 0.80; 72% sensitivity, 72.6% specificity) from healthy individuals (30). These initial AAb panels demonstrated a promising trend for early breast cancer screening. However, these studies are in phase I/II of the ProBE guidelines and need large-scale retrospective and prospective studies to understand their usefulness as early diagnostic markers.

In 2011, Anderson and colleagues used a three-phase screening approach to detect AAbs for early-stage breast cancers (IBC). In the first stage, sera from IBC (n = 53) and healthy control (n = 53) were screened against 4,988 antigens via a high-density protein array, NAPPA (56). After eliminating uninformative antigens, 761 antigens with high responses were screened in the second stage using an independent set of IBC sera (n = 51) and sera from women with benign breast disease (n = 39). One hundred nineteen antigens were selected from the second phase (sensitivities from 9%–40% at 91% specificity) to conduct the phase III validation study. In the third phase, with an independent serum cohort (n = 51 cases/38 controls, also benign disease), 28 of these antigens were confirmed with an ELISA assay under blinded conditions. The 28-AAb panel had a sensitivity of 80.8% and a specificity of 61.6% (AUC = 0.756) for early detection of breast cancer. This discovery and validation study (phase I/II), later led to the development of Videssa Breast, a blood-based combinatorial proteomic biomarker assay (57). In 2017, two prospective clinical trials were conducted to evaluate the potential of Videssa Breast, which combined 10 AAbs with 8 serum protein biomarkers to detect breast cancer in women under the age of 50 years (59). The validation cohort reported a sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 81.5%, for Videssa Breast, demonstrating its potential to effectively detect breast cancer and indicating it would be useful to combine this assay with image-based screening modalities. In other studies, Videssa Breast has further demonstrated that breast density does not affect the ability of the assay to detect breast cancer, and it may provide clinicians extra information that potentially would aid in reducing false positives in breast cancer imaging (58, 119).

In a subsequent study, Wang and colleagues reported plasma autoantibodies associated with basal-like breast cancer, a rare aggressive subtype less likely to be detected via mammography (29). This study used basal-like breast cancer patients (n = 45) and controls (n = 45) from the Polish Breast Cancer study to screen 10,000 antigens on high-density NAPPA protein arrays in the discovery phase. From the initial screen, 748 promising AAbs were identified and subjected to further validation using a cohort of basal-like breast cancer (n = 145) and age-matched controls (n = 145). This study reported a 13-AAb panel to distinguish basal-like breast cancer from controls with 33% sensitivity and 98% specificity. This study (phase I/II) was focused mainly on basal-like breast cancer subtype. They used a large number of basal-like breast cancer patient samples and age-matched controls with detailed data on tumor characteristics, demographics, and treatment information. However, it is unclear from this study how early these markers are present and require further validation in prospective cohorts.

Lacombe and colleagues reported a panel of five AAbs (GAL3, PAK2, PHB2, RACK1, and RUVBL1) as a diagnostic tool for screening early-stage and preinvasive breast cancer (116). To discover new AAbs, they used 2D gel analysis and mass spectrometry on a discovery cohort (n = 80) and identified 67 interesting targets that elicited a humoral response. Five of the targets were selected and validated with an independent sample set (n = 182) with ELISA. As a panel, the five markers discriminated early-stage cancer from healthy controls (AUC = 0.81; 95% CI) and reported a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 84% for early-stage breast cancer patients. Here, they used two independent serum cohorts to identify and validate the five protein panel (phase I/II). However, a systematic, prospective trial is needed to further investigate the clinical effectiveness of this panel for early diagnosis. A follow-up study reported a multiparametric serum marker panel for screening early-stage breast cancer that could be used along with mammography to improve early diagnosis (85). Here, the authors explored the AAb response against 13 antigens (HSP60, FKBP52, PRDX2, PPIA, MUC1, GAL3, PAK2, p53, CCNB1, PHB2, RACK1, RUVBL1, and HER2) already identified in the literature in a large prospective cohort of 240 patients with node-negative early-stage disease or DCIS with 156 healthy controls. Single AAbs demonstrated a weak performance in discriminating breast cancer from healthy controls (AUC ranging from 0.52–0.65). When used as an AAb panel the discrimination power was improved (AUC = 0.82; 95% CI) between the breast cancer and the healthy cohort. The screening test showed 90% sensitivity with 42% specificity. For a different subtype, the panel discriminated node-negative early disease with 51% and DCIS with 32% specificities at 90% sensitivity. Patients younger than 50 years with node-negative early-stage breast cancers showed 59% specificity with 90% fixed sensitivity. However, large-scale trials are needed to further evaluate its potential for early screening and clinical management.

Conclusions and Future Directions

Multiple breast cancer-specific AAbs have been identified for early diagnosis of breast cancer. Although individual AAbs have shown poor performance for population-based screening, autoantibody panels have shown encouraging results. Modern screening digital mammography has a sensitivity of 86.9% for breast cancer screening (9). None of the AAb panels reported so far for breast cancer qualify as standalone screening assays but could be useful in combination with routine mammography screening (58). Moving these promising AAb candidates into clinical use necessitates a rigorous systematic approach. Proper study design, statistical models, and extensive analytical and clinical validation with well-defined quantitative parameters are necessary attributes to develop a useful AAb-based diagnostic screening tool for breast cancer. Future studies should follow the recommended five-phase schema and the ProBE guidelines suggested for all biomarker studies before any clinical evaluation (27, 28). Many AAbs reported for breast cancer early screening have not gone beyond the discovery phase and most lack blinded validation studies. Most of the studies discussed here belong to phase I, preclinical exploratory, or phase II, clinical assay, and validation phases in biomarker development (29, 64, 78, 116). Only a few studies have conducted retrospective longitudinal studies (phase III) where they have attempted to detect preclinical disease (25). It is vital to have newly diagnosed patient sera and samples collected before diagnosis when validating AAb panels to determine the true potential of the markers for early detection. The NCI Early Detection Research Network (NCI-EDRN) has supported early screening studies by developing a multicenter breast cancer reference set of plasma and sera, a precious resource for validation studies. Despite many challenges, AAbs have great potential for early screening of breast cancers and would be useful when used in conjunction with mammography.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

K.S. Anderson reports personal fees from ProvistaDx and nonfinancial support from FlexBioTech outside the submitted work, as well as a patent for breast cancer biomarkers pending, issued, licensed, and with royalties paid from Provista Dx. J. LaBaer reports grants from NIH NCI EDRN during the conduct of the study, as well as a patent for US 9857374 issued and some ownership of Ordinatrix, a small start-up company that produces protein microarrays and provides protein microarray screening services. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other author.

Footnotes

  • Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29:2475–85

  • Received April 15, 2020.
  • Revision received July 14, 2020.
  • Accepted September 24, 2020.
  • Published first September 29, 2020.
  • ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:7–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. DeSantis CE,
    2. Ma J,
    3. Gaudet MM,
    4. Newman LA,
    5. Miller KD,
    6. Goding Sauer A,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:438–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Miller KD,
    2. Nogueira L,
    3. Mariotto AB,
    4. Rowland JH,
    5. Yabroff KR,
    6. Alfano CM,
    7. et al.
    Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:363–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bevers TB,
    2. Helvie M,
    3. Bonaccio E,
    4. Calhoun KE,
    5. Daly MB,
    6. Farrar WB,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16:1362–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Marmot MG,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Cameron DA,
    4. Dewar JA,
    5. Thompson SG,
    6. Wilcox M
    . The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2205–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Coldman A,
    2. Phillips N,
    3. Wilson C,
    4. Decker K,
    5. Chiarelli AM,
    6. Brisson J,
    7. et al.
    Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju261.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Paci E,
    2. Broeders M,
    3. Hofvind S,
    4. Puliti D,
    5. Duffy SW
    . European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:1159.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Seely JM,
    2. Alhassan T
    . Screening for breast cancer in 2018—what should we be doing today? Curr Oncol 2018;25:S115–S24.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lehman CD,
    2. Arao RF,
    3. Sprague BL,
    4. Lee JM,
    5. Buist DSM,
    6. Kerlikowske K,
    7. et al.
    National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 2017;283:49–58.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Wadhwa A,
    2. Sullivan JR,
    3. Gonyo MB
    . Missed breast cancer: what can we learn? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2016;45:402–19.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nelson HD,
    2. Pappas M,
    3. Cantor A,
    4. Griffin J,
    5. Daeges M,
    6. Humphrey L
    . Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:256–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Oeffinger KC,
    2. Fontham ETH,
    3. Etzioni R,
    4. Herzig A,
    5. Michaelson JS,
    6. Shih YCT,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 2015;314:1599–614.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Lianidou ES,
    2. Markou A
    . Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer: detection systems, molecular characterization, and future challenges. Clin Chem 2020;57:1242–55.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Frères P,
    2. Wenric S,
    3. Boukerroucha M,
    4. Fasquelle C,
    5. Thiry J,
    6. Bovy N,
    7. et al.
    Circulating microRNA-based screening tool for breast cancer. Oncotarget 2016;7:5416–28.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hamam R,
    2. Hamam D,
    3. Alsaleh KA,
    4. Kassem M,
    5. Zaher W,
    6. Alfayez M,
    7. et al.
    Circulating microRNAs in breast cancer: novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Cell Death Dis 2017;8:e3045.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Aravanis AM,
    2. Lee M,
    3. Klausner RD
    . Next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA for early cancer detection. Cell 2017;168:571–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Jayaseelan VP
    . Emerging role of exosomes as promising diagnostic tool for cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 2020;27:395–98.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Taylor G,
    2. Odili JL
    . Tumour specific T-like antigen of human breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1970;24:447–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Doyle HA,
    2. Gee RJ,
    3. Mamula MJ
    . A failure to repair self-proteins leads to T cell hyperproliferation and autoantibody production. J Immunol 2003;171:2840.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Jin H,
    2. Zangar RC
    . Protein modifications as potential biomarkers in breast cancer. Biomark Insights 2009;4:191–200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Anderson KS,
    2. LaBaer J
    . The sentinel within: exploiting the immune system for cancer biomarkers. J Proteome Res 2005;4:1123–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Dudas SP,
    2. Chatterjee M,
    3. Tainsky MA
    . Usage of cancer associated autoantibodies in the detection of disease. Cancer Biomark 2010;6:257–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Turnbull AR,
    2. Turner DT,
    3. Fraser JD,
    4. Lloyd RS,
    5. Lang CJ,
    6. Wright R
    . Autoantibodies in early breast cancer: a stage-related phenomenon? Br J Cancer 1978;38:461–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Suzuki H,
    2. Graziano DF,
    3. McKolanis J,
    4. Finn OJ
    . T cell–dependent antibody responses against aberrantly expressed cyclin B1 protein in patients with cancer and premalignant disease. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:1521.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lu H,
    2. Ladd J,
    3. Feng Z,
    4. Wu M,
    5. Goodell V,
    6. Pitteri SJ,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of known oncoantibodies, HER2, p53, and cyclin B1, in prediagnostic breast cancer sera. Cancer Prev Res 2012;5:1036–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. LaBaer J
    . So, you want to look for biomarkers (introduction to the special biomarkers issue). J Proteome Res 2005;4:1053–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Pepe MS,
    2. Etzioni R,
    3. Feng Z,
    4. Potter JD,
    5. Thompson ML,
    6. Thornquist M,
    7. et al.
    Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1054–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Pepe MS,
    2. Feng Z,
    3. Janes H,
    4. Bossuyt PM,
    5. Potter JD
    . Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1432–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Figueroa JD,
    3. Wallstrom G,
    4. Barker K,
    5. Park JG,
    6. Demirkan G,
    7. et al.
    Plasma autoantibodies associated with basal-like breast cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:1332–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Desmetz C,
    2. Bascoul-Mollevi C,
    3. Rochaix P,
    4. Lamy P-J,
    5. Kramar A,
    6. Rouanet P,
    7. et al.
    Identification of a new panel of serum autoantibodies associated with the presence of in situ carcinoma of the breast in younger women. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:4733.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ramachandran N,
    2. Anderson KS,
    3. Raphael JV,
    4. Hainsworth E,
    5. Sibani S,
    6. Montor WR,
    7. et al.
    Tracking humoral responses using self assembling protein microarrays. Proteomics Clin Appl 2008;2:1518–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ramachandran N,
    2. Hainsworth E,
    3. Bhullar B,
    4. Eisenstein S,
    5. Rosen B,
    6. Lau AY,
    7. et al.
    Self-assembling protein microarrays. Science 2004;305:86–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Yu J,
    3. Sreekumar A,
    4. Varambally S,
    5. Shen R,
    6. Giacherio D,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibody signatures in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1224–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Klade CS,
    2. Voss T,
    3. Krystek E,
    4. Ahorn H,
    5. Zatloukal K,
    6. Pummer K,
    7. et al.
    Identification of tumor antigens in renal cell carcinoma by serological proteome analysis. Proteomics 2001;1:890–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Chatterjee M,
    2. Mohapatra S,
    3. Ionan A,
    4. Bawa G,
    5. Ali-Fehmi R,
    6. Wang X,
    7. et al.
    Diagnostic markers of ovarian cancer by high-throughput antigen cloning and detection on arrays. Cancer Res 2006;66:1181–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lin H-S,
    2. Talwar HS,
    3. Tarca AL,
    4. Ionan A,
    5. Chatterjee M,
    6. Ye B,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibody approach for serum-based detection of head and neck cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:2396–405.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sahin U,
    2. Türeci O,
    3. Schmitt H,
    4. Cochlovius B,
    5. Johannes T,
    6. Schmits R,
    7. et al.
    Human neoplasms elicit multiple specific immune responses in the autologous host. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995;92:11810–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Güre AO,
    2. Altorki NK,
    3. Stockert E,
    4. Scanlan MJ,
    5. Old LJ,
    6. Chen YT
    . Human lung cancer antigens recognized by autologous antibodies: definition of a novel cDNA derived from the tumor suppressor gene locus on chromosome 3p21.3. Cancer Res 1998;58:1034.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Obata Y,
    2. Takahashi T,
    3. Tamaki H,
    4. Tominaga S,
    5. Murai H,
    6. Iwase T,
    7. et al.
    Identification of cancer antigens in breast cancer by the SEREX expression cloning method. Breast Cancer 1999;6:305–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Dantas-Barbosa C,
    2. de Macedo Brigido M,
    3. Maranhao AQ
    . Antibody phage display libraries: contributions to oncology. Int J Mol Sci 2012;13:5420–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Minenkova O,
    2. Pucci A,
    3. Pavoni E,
    4. De Tomassi A,
    5. Fortugno P,
    6. Gargano N,
    7. et al.
    Identification of tumor-associated antigens by screening phage-displayed human cDNA libraries with sera from tumor patients. Int J Cancer 2003;106:534–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Mintz PJ,
    2. Rietz AC,
    3. Cardó-Vila M,
    4. Ozawa MG,
    5. Dondossola E,
    6. Do KA,
    7. et al.
    Discovery and horizontal follow-up of an autoantibody signature in human prostate cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:2515–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Pavoni E,
    2. Vaccaro P,
    3. Pucci A,
    4. Monteriù G,
    5. Beghetto E,
    6. Barca S,
    7. et al.
    Identification of a panel of tumor-associated antigens from breast carcinoma cell lines, solid tumors and testis cDNA libraries displayed on lambda phage. BMC Cancer 2004;4:78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Zhong L,
    2. Ge K,
    3. Zu JC,
    4. Zhao LH,
    5. Shen WK,
    6. Wang JF,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibodies as potential biomarkers for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2008;10:R40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Le Naour F,
    2. Brichory F,
    3. Beretta L,
    4. Hanash SM
    . Identification of tumor-associated antigens using proteomics. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2002;1:257–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Nakanishi T,
    2. Takeuchi T,
    3. Ueda K,
    4. Murao H,
    5. Shimizu A
    . Detection of eight antibodies in cancer patients' sera against proteins derived from the adenocarcinoma A549 cell line using proteomics-based analysis. J Chromatogr B 2006;838:15–20.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Brichory F,
    2. Beer D,
    3. LeNaour F,
    4. Giordano T,
    5. Hanash S
    . Proteomics-based identification of protein gene product 9.5 as a tumor antigen that induces a humoral immune response in lung cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:7908.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Prasannan L,
    2. Misek DE,
    3. Hinderer R,
    4. Michon J,
    5. Geiger JD,
    6. Hanash SM
    . Identification of β-tubulin isoforms as tumor antigens in neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:3949–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Li L,
    2. Chen SH,
    3. Yu CH,
    4. Li YM,
    5. Wang SQ
    . Identification of hepatocellular-carcinoma-associated antigens and autoantibodies by serological proteome analysis combined with protein microarray. J Proteome Res 2008;7:611–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Yu X,
    2. Petritis B,
    3. LaBaer J
    . Advancing translational research with next-generation protein microarrays. Proteomics 2016;16:1238–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Jeong JS,
    2. Jiang L,
    3. Albino E,
    4. Marrero J,
    5. Rho HS,
    6. Hu J,
    7. et al.
    Rapid identification of monospecific monoclonal antibodies using a human proteome microarray. Mol Cell Proteomics 2012;11:O111.016253.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Li J,
    4. Zhang H,
    5. Guo S,
    6. Yan M,
    7. et al.
    Identification of serum biomarkers for gastric cancer diagnosis using a human proteome microarray. Mol Cell Proteomics 2016;15:614–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Ladd JJ,
    2. Chao T,
    3. Johnson MM,
    4. Qiu J,
    5. Chin A,
    6. Israel R,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibody signatures involving glycolysis and splicesome proteins precede a diagnosis of breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Cancer Res 2013;73:1502–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Qiu J,
    2. Madoz-Gurpide J,
    3. Misek DE,
    4. Kuick R,
    5. Brenner DE,
    6. Michailidis G,
    7. et al.
    Development of natural protein microarrays for diagnosing cancer based on an antibody response to tumor antigens. J Proteome Res 2004;3:261–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Katayama H,
    2. Boldt C,
    3. Ladd JJ,
    4. Johnson MM,
    5. Chao T,
    6. Capello M,
    7. et al.
    An autoimmune response signature associated with the development of triple-negative breast cancer reflects disease pathogenesis. Cancer Res 2015;75:3246.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Anderson KS,
    2. Sibani S,
    3. Wallstrom G,
    4. Qiu J,
    5. Mendoza EA,
    6. Raphael J,
    7. et al.
    Protein microarray signature of autoantibody biomarkers for the early detection of breast cancer. J Proteome Res 2011;10:85–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Henderson MC,
    2. Hollingsworth AB,
    3. Gordon K,
    4. Silver M,
    5. Mulpuri R,
    6. Letsios E,
    7. et al.
    Integration of serum protein biomarker and tumor associated autoantibody expression data increases the ability of a blood-based proteomic assay to identify breast cancer. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157692.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Henderson MC,
    2. Silver M,
    3. Tran Q,
    4. Letsios EE,
    5. Mulpuri R,
    6. Reese DE,
    7. et al.
    A noninvasive blood-based combinatorial proteomic biomarker assay to detect breast cancer in women over age 50 with BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 assessment. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Lourenco AP,
    2. Benson KL,
    3. Henderson MC,
    4. Silver M,
    5. Letsios E,
    6. Tran Q,
    7. et al.
    A noninvasive blood-based combinatorial proteomic biomarker assay to detect breast cancer in women under the age of 50 years. Clin Breast Cancer 2017;17:516–25.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    1. Wang CC,
    2. Huang YL,
    3. Ren CT,
    4. Lin CW,
    5. Hung JT,
    6. Yu JC,
    7. et al.
    Glycan microarray of Globo H and related structures for quantitative analysis of breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:11661.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Liang CH,
    2. Wu CY
    . Glycan array: a powerful tool for glycomics studies. Expert Rev Proteomics 2009;6:631–45.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Blsakova A,
    2. Kveton F,
    3. Kasak P,
    4. Tkac J
    . Antibodies against aberrant glycans as cancer biomarkers. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2019;19:1057–68.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. Wandall HH,
    2. Blixt O,
    3. Tarp MA,
    4. Pedersen JW,
    5. Bennett EP,
    6. Mandel U,
    7. et al.
    Cancer biomarkers defined by autoantibody signatures to aberrant O-glycopeptide epitopes. Cancer Res 2010;70:1306–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Blixt O,
    2. Bueti D,
    3. Burford B,
    4. Allen D,
    5. Julien S,
    6. Hollingsworth M,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibodies to aberrantly glycosylated MUC1 in early stage breast cancer are associated with a better prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:R25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Goodell V,
    2. Disis ML
    . Human tumor cell lysates as a protein source for the detection of cancer antigen-specific humoral immunity. J Immunol Methods 2005;299:129–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Goodell V,
    2. Salazar LG,
    3. Urban N,
    4. Drescher CW,
    5. Gray H,
    6. Swensen RE,
    7. et al.
    Antibody immunity to the p53 oncogenic protein is a prognostic indicator in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:762–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Kellar KL,
    2. Iannone MA
    . Multiplexed microsphere-based flow cytometric assays. Exp Hematol 2002;30:1227–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Anderson KS,
    2. Cramer DW,
    3. Sibani S,
    4. Wallstrom G,
    5. Wong J,
    6. Park J,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibody signature for the serologic detection of ovarian cancer. J Proteome Res 2015;14:578–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Wong J,
    2. Sibani S,
    3. Lokko NN,
    4. LaBaer J,
    5. Anderson KS
    . Rapid detection of antibodies in sera using multiplexed self-assembling bead arrays. J Immunol Methods 2009;350:171–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Soussi T
    . p53 antibodies in the sera of patients with various types of cancer: a review. Cancer Res 2000;60:1777.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Hafner A,
    2. Bulyk ML,
    3. Jambhekar A,
    4. Lahav G
    . The multiple mechanisms that regulate p53 activity and cell fate. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2019;20:199–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Goldstein I,
    2. Marcel V,
    3. Olivier M,
    4. Oren M,
    5. Rotter V,
    6. Hainaut P
    . Understanding wild-type and mutant p53 activities in human cancer: new landmarks on the way to targeted therapies. Cancer Gene Ther 2011;18:2–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Bueter M,
    2. Gasser M,
    3. Lebedeva T,
    4. Benichou G,
    5. Waaga-Gasser AM
    . Influence of p53 on anti-tumor immunity (review). Int J Oncol 2006;28:519–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Winter SF,
    2. Minna JD,
    3. Johnson BE,
    4. Takahashi T,
    5. Gazdar AF,
    6. Carbone DP
    . Development of antibodies against p53 in lung cancer patients appears to be dependent on the type of p53 mutation. Cancer Res 1992;52:4168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. DeLeo AB,
    2. Jay G,
    3. Appella E,
    4. Dubois GC,
    5. Law LW,
    6. Old LJ
    . Detection of a transformation-related antigen in chemically induced sarcomas and other transformed cells of the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1979;76:2420–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Crawford LV,
    2. Pim DC,
    3. Bulbrook RD
    . Detection of antibodies against the cellular protein p53 in sera from patients with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1982;30:403–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Shimada H,
    2. Ochiai T,
    3. Nomura F
    . Titration of serum p53 antibodies in 1085 patients with various types of malignant tumors. Cancer 2003;97:682–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Chapman C,
    2. Murray A,
    3. Chakrabarti J,
    4. Thorpe A,
    5. Woolston C,
    6. Sahin U,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibodies in breast cancer: their use as an aid to early diagnosis. Ann Oncol 2007;18:868–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Green JA,
    2. Mudenda B,
    3. Jenkins J,
    4. Leinster SJ,
    5. Tarunina M,
    6. Green B,
    7. et al.
    Serum p53 auto-antibodies: incidence in familial breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1994;30:580–4.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    1. Mudenda B,
    2. Green JA,
    3. Green B,
    4. Jenkins JR,
    5. Robertson L,
    6. Tarunina M,
    7. et al.
    The relationship between serum p53 autoantibodies and characteristics of human breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1994;69:1115–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Regele S,
    2. Kohlberger P,
    3. Vogl FD,
    4. Böhm W,
    5. Kreienberg R,
    6. Runnebaum IB
    . Serum p53 autoantibodies in patients with minimal lesions of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Cancer 1999;81:702–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Anderson KS,
    2. Ramachandran N,
    3. Wong J,
    4. Raphael JV,
    5. Hainsworth E,
    6. Demirkan G,
    7. et al.
    Application of protein microarrays for multiplexed detection of antibodies to tumor antigens in breast cancer. J Proteome Res 2008;7:1490–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Gao RJ,
    2. Bao HZ,
    3. Yang Q,
    4. Cong Q,
    5. Song JN,
    6. Wang L
    . The presence of serum anti-p53 antibodies from patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of breast: correlation to other clinical and biological parameters. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;93:111–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Sangrajrang S,
    2. Arpornwirat W,
    3. Cheirsilpa A,
    4. Thisuphakorn P,
    5. Kalalak A,
    6. Sornprom A,
    7. et al.
    Serum p53 antibodies in correlation to other biological parameters of breast cancer. Cancer Detect Prev 2003;27:182–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Lacombe J,
    2. Mangé A,
    3. Bougnoux AC,
    4. Prassas I,
    5. Solassol J
    . 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 Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:1834.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Hammel P,
    2. Leroy-Viard K,
    3. Chaumette MT,
    4. Villaudy J,
    5. Falzone MC,
    6. Rouillard D,
    7. et al.
    Correlations between p53-protein accumulation, serum antibodies and gene mutation in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 1999;81:712–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. von Brevern M-C,
    2. Hollstein MC,
    3. Cawley HM,
    4. De Benedetti VMG,
    5. Bennett WP,
    6. Liang L,
    7. et al.
    Circulating anti-p53 antibodies in esophageal cancer patients are found predominantly in individuals with p53 core domain mutations in their tumors. Cancer Res 1996;56:4917.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Metcalfe S,
    2. Wheeler TK,
    3. Picken S,
    4. Negus S,
    5. Milner AJ
    . P53 autoantibodies in 1006 patients followed up for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2000;2:438–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Lenner P,
    2. Wiklund F,
    3. Emdin SO,
    4. Arnerlöv C,
    5. Eklund C,
    6. Hallmans G,
    7. et al.
    Serum antibodies against p53 in relation to cancer risk and prognosis in breast cancer: a population-based epidemiological study. Br J Cancer 1999;79:927–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Hattrup CL,
    2. Gendler SJ
    . Structure and function of the cell surface (tethered) mucins. Annu Rev Physiol 2008;70:431–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Nath S,
    2. Mukherjee P
    . MUC1: a multifaceted oncoprotein with a key role in cancer progression. Trends Mol Med 2014;20:332–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Gendler SJ
    . MUC1, the renaissance molecule. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2001;6:339–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Rakha EA,
    2. Boyce RWG,
    3. Abd El-Rehim D,
    4. Kurien T,
    5. Green AR,
    6. Paish EC,
    7. et al.
    Expression of mucins (MUC1, MUC2, MUC3, MUC4, MUC5AC and MUC6) and their prognostic significance in human breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2005;18:1295–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Whitehouse C,
    2. Burchell J,
    3. Gschmeissner S,
    4. Brockhausen I,
    5. Lloyd KO,
    6. Taylor-Papadimitriou J
    . A transfected sialyltransferase that is elevated in breast cancer and localizes to the medial/trans-Golgi apparatus inhibits the development of core-2-based O-glycans. J Cell Biol 1997;137:1229–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Brockhausen I,
    2. Yang JM,
    3. Burchell J,
    4. Whitehouse C,
    5. Taylor-Papadimitriou J
    . Mechanisms underlying aberrant glycosylation of MUC1 mucin in breast cancer cells. Eur J Biochem 1995;233:607–17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Gourevitch MM,
    2. von Mensdorff-Pouilly S,
    3. Litvinov SV,
    4. Kenemans P,
    5. van Kamp GJ,
    6. Verstraeten AA,
    7. et al.
    Polymorphic epithelial mucin (MUC-1)-containing circulating immune complexes in carcinoma patients. Br J Cancer 1995;72:934–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Kotera Y,
    2. Fontenot JD,
    3. Pecher G,
    4. Metzgar RS,
    5. Finn OJ
    . Humoral immunity against a tandem repeat epitope of human mucin MUC-1 in sera from breast, pancreatic, and colon cancer patients. Cancer Res 1994;54:2856.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. von Mensdorff-Pouilly S,
    2. Gourevitch MM,
    3. Kenemans P,
    4. Verstraeten AA,
    5. Litvinov SV,
    6. van Kamp GJ,
    7. et al.
    Humoral immune response to polymorphic epithelial mucin (MUC-1) in patients with benign and malignant breast tumours. Eur J Cancer 1996;32:1325–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Evans RL,
    2. Pottala JV,
    3. Egland KA
    . Classifying patients for breast cancer by detection of autoantibodies against a panel of conformation-carrying antigens. Cancer Prev Res 2014;7:545–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. 100.↵
    1. Burford B,
    2. Gentry-Maharaj A,
    3. Graham R,
    4. Allen D,
    5. Pedersen JW,
    6. Nudelman AS,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibodies to MUC1 glycopeptides cannot be used as a screening assay for early detection of breast, ovarian, lung or pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2013;108:2045–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Hermsen BBJ,
    2. Verheijen RHM,
    3. Menko FH,
    4. Gille JJP,
    5. van Uffelen K,
    6. Blankenstein MA,
    7. et al.
    Humoral immune responses to MUC1 in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:1556–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Hayes DF
    . HER2 and breast cancer — a phenomenal success story. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1284–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. King CR,
    2. Kraus MH,
    3. Aaronson SA
    . Amplification of a novel v-erbB-related gene in a human mammary carcinoma. Science 1985;229:974.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. 104.↵
    1. Slamon DJ,
    2. Clark GM,
    3. Wong SG,
    4. Levin WJ,
    5. Ullrich A,
    6. McGuire WL
    . Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 1987;235:177.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    1. Disis ML,
    2. Pupa SM,
    3. Gralow JR,
    4. Dittadi R,
    5. Menard S,
    6. Cheever MA
    . High-titer HER-2/neu protein-specific antibody can be detected in patients with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:3363–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. 106.↵
    1. Goodell V,
    2. Waisman J,
    3. Salazar LG,
    4. dela Rosa C,
    5. Link J,
    6. Coveler AL,
    7. et al.
    Level of HER-2/neu protein expression in breast cancer may affect the development of endogenous HER-2/neu-specific immunity. Mol Cancer Ther 2008;7:449.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. 107.↵
    1. López-Árias E,
    2. Aguilar-Lemarroy A,
    3. Felipe Jave-Suárez L,
    4. Morgan-Villela G,
    5. Mariscal-Ramírez I,
    6. Martínez-Velázquez M,
    7. et al.
    Alpha 1-antitrypsin: a novel tumor-associated antigen identified in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Electrophoresis 2012;33:2130–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Mohammed M,
    2. Abdelhafiz K
    . Autoantibodies in the sera of breast cancer patients: antinuclear and anti-double stranded DNA antibodies as example. J Cancer Res Ther 2015;11:341–4.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    1. Maroun M-C,
    2. Olivero O,
    3. Lipovich L,
    4. Stark A,
    5. Tait L,
    6. Bandyopadhyay S,
    7. et al.
    Anti-centrosome antibodies in breast cancer are the expression of autoimmunity. Immunol Res 2014;60:339–47.
    OpenUrl
  110. 110.↵
    1. Yagihashi A,
    2. Ohmura T,
    3. Asanuma K,
    4. Kobayashi D,
    5. Tsuji N,
    6. Torigoe T,
    7. et al.
    Detection of autoantibodies to survivin and livin in sera from patients with breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 2005;362:125–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    1. Yi JK,
    2. Chang JW,
    3. Han W,
    4. Lee JW,
    5. Ko E,
    6. Kim DH,
    7. et al.
    Autoantibody to tumor antigen, alpha 2-HS glycoprotein: a novel biomarker of breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1357.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. 112.↵
    1. Dong X,
    2. Yang M,
    3. Sun H,
    4. Lü J,
    5. Zheng Z,
    6. Li Z,
    7. et al.
    Combined measurement of CA 15-3 with novel autoantibodies improves diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther 2013;6:273–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    1. Looi K,
    2. Megliorino R,
    3. Shi FD,
    4. Peng XX,
    5. Chen Y,
    6. Zhang JY
    . Humoral immune response to p16, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor in human malignancies. Oncol Rep 2006;16:1105–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    1. Desmetz C,
    2. Bibeau F,
    3. Boissière F,
    4. Bellet V,
    5. Rouanet P,
    6. Maudelonde T,
    7. et al.
    Proteomics-based identification of HSP60 as a tumor-associated antigen in early stage breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. J Proteome Res 2008;7:3830–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Ye H,
    2. Sun C,
    3. Ren P,
    4. Dai L,
    5. Peng B,
    6. Wang K,
    7. et al.
    Mini-array of multiple tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) in the immunodiagnosis of breast cancer. Oncol Lett 2013;5:663–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    1. Lacombe J,
    2. Mangé A,
    3. Jarlier M,
    4. Bascoul-Mollevi C,
    5. Rouanet P,
    6. Lamy PJ,
    7. et al.
    Identification and validation of new autoantibodies for the diagnosis of DCIS and node negative early-stage breast cancers. Int J Cancer 2013;132:1105–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Zuo X,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Liu L,
    4. Zhang Z,
    5. Zhang X,
    6. Yu Q,
    7. et al.
    Identification of a panel of complex autoantigens (LGALS3, PHB2, MUC1, and GK2) in combination with CA15-3 for the diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer. Tumor Biol 2016;37:1309–17.
    OpenUrl
  118. 118.↵
    1. Liu Y,
    2. Liao Y,
    3. Xiang L,
    4. Jiang K,
    5. Li S,
    6. Huangfu M,
    7. et al.
    A panel of autoantibodies as potential early diagnostic serum biomarkers in patients with breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2017;22:291–6.
    OpenUrl
  119. 119.↵
    1. Reese DE,
    2. Henderson MC,
    3. Silver M,
    4. Mulpuri R,
    5. Letsios E,
    6. Tran Q,
    7. et al.
    Breast density does not impact the ability of Videssa Breast to detect breast cancer in women under age 50. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186198.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 29 (12)
December 2020
Volume 29, Issue 12
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Autoantibodies in Early Detection of Breast Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Autoantibodies in Early Detection of Breast Cancer
Femina Rauf, Karen S. Anderson and Joshua LaBaer
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev December 1 2020 (29) (12) 2475-2485; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0331

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Autoantibodies in Early Detection of Breast Cancer
Femina Rauf, Karen S. Anderson and Joshua LaBaer
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev December 1 2020 (29) (12) 2475-2485; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0331
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Autoantibodies as Potential Biomarkers
    • Methods to Identify and Validate Autoantibodies in Breast Cancer
    • Autoantibodies to Individual Tumor Antigens in Breast Cancer
    • Autoantibody Panels for Early Detection of Breast Cancers
    • Conclusions and Future Directions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Biomarkers for Lung Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Immune Markers for Early Detection of Lung Cancer
  • Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer
Show more CEBP Focus
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement