Salivary expression of soluble HER2 in breast cancer patients with positive and negative HER2 status

Salivary biomarkers in breast cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Salivary diagnostics and their utility as a nonaggressive approach for breast cancer diagnosis have been extensively studied in recent years. This meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic value of salivary biomarkers in differentiating between patients with breast cancer and controls.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of studies related to salivary diagnostics published in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Ovid, Science Direct, Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar. The articles were chosen utilizing inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as assessing their quality. Specificity and sensitivity, along with negative and positive likelihood ratios (NLR and PLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were calculated based on random- or fixed-effects model. Area under the curve (AUC) and summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) were plotted and evaluated, and Fagan's Nomogram was evaluated for clinical utility.

RESULTS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis included 14 papers containing 121 study units with 8639 adult subjects (4149 breast cancer patients and 4490 controls without cancer). The pooled specificity and sensitivity were 0.727 (95% CI: 0.713-0.740) and 0.717 (95% CI: 0.703-0.730), respectively. The pooled NLR and PLR were 0.396 (95% CI: 0.364-0.432) and 2.597 (95% CI: 2.389-2.824), respectively. The pooled DOR was 7.837 (95% CI: 6.624-9.277), with the AUC equal to 0.801. The Fagan's nomogram showed post-test probabilities of 28% and 72% for negative and positive outcomes, respectively. We also conducted subgroup analyses to determine specificity, sensitivity, DOR, PLR, and NLR based on the mean age of patients (≤52 or >52 years old), saliva type (stimulated and unstimulated saliva), biomarker measurement method (mass spectrometry [MS] and non-MS measurement methods), sample size (≤55 or >55), biomarker type (proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics and proteomics, and reagent-free biophotonic), and nations.

CONCLUSION

Saliva, as a noninvasive biomarker, has the potential to accurately differentiate breast cancer patients from healthy controls.

Proteomics and its applications in breast cancer

Breast cancer is an individually unique, multi-faceted and chameleonic disease, an eternal challenge for the new era of high-integrated precision diagnostic and personalized oncomedicine. Besides traditional single-omics fields (such as genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics) and multi-omics contributions (proteogenomics, proteotranscriptomics or reproductomics), several new "-omics" approaches and exciting proteomics subfields are contributing to basic and advanced understanding of these "multiple diseases termed breast cancer": phenomics/cellomics, connectomics and interactomics, secretomics, matrisomics, exosomics, angiomics, chaperomics and epichaperomics, phosphoproteomics, ubiquitinomics, metalloproteomics, terminomics, degradomics and metadegradomics, adhesomics, stressomics, microbiomics, immunomics, salivaomics, materiomics and other biomics. Throughout the extremely complex neoplastic process, a Breast Cancer Cell Continuum Concept (BCCCC) has been modeled in this review as a spatio-temporal and holistic approach, as long as the breast cancer represents a complex cascade comprising successively integrated populations of heterogeneous tumor and cancer-associated cells, that reflect the carcinoma's progression from a "driving mutation" and formation of the breast primary tumor, toward the distant secondary tumors in different tissues and organs, via circulating tumor cell populations. This BCCCC is widely sustained by a Breast Cancer Proteomic Continuum Concept (BCPCC), where each phenotype of neoplastic and tumor-associated cells is characterized by a changing and adaptive proteomic profile detected in solid and liquid minimal invasive biopsies by complex proteomics approaches. Such a profile is created, beginning with the proteomic landscape of different neoplastic cell populations and cancer-associated cells, followed by subsequent analysis of protein biomarkers involved in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and intravasation, circulating tumor cell proteomics, and, finally, by protein biomarkers that highlight the extravasation and distant metastatic invasion. Proteomics technologies are producing important data in breast cancer diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers discovery and validation, are detecting genetic aberrations at the proteome level, describing functional and regulatory pathways and emphasizing specific protein and peptide profiles in human tissues, biological fluids, cell lines and animal models. Also, proteomics can identify different breast cancer subtypes and specific protein and proteoform expression, can assess the efficacy of cancer therapies at cellular and tissular level and can even identify new therapeutic target proteins in clinical studies.

Bioprinting of patient-derived in vitro intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tumor model: establishment, evaluation and anti-cancer drug testing

Towards the development of in vivo-mimicking tumor model for extensive study of tumorigenesis and establishment of personalized therapy, patient-derived primary tumor cells were employed in this work for three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cells isolated from patient were bioprinted using a composite hydrogel system of gelatin-alginate-Matrigel^TM into pre-designed grid architecture. ICC cells were observed to process a colony forming ability with high survival rate and active proliferation. Expression levels of tumor markers, cancer stem cell markers, matrix metalloproteinase protein, index of tumor fibrosis, index of liver function, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition regulatory proteins confirmed the development of the invasive and metastatic phenotype of the intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cells in the 3D printed tumor microenvironment. Similar results were obtained in anti-cancer drug resistance of the intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cells in the 3D bioprinted construct that demonstrated stem-like properties, which suggested the promising potential of current 3D printed tumor model in the development of personalized therapy, especially for discovery of more conducive targeted drugs.

Bioprinting of in vitro tumor models for personalized cancer treatment: a review

Studying biological characteristics of tumors and evaluating the treatment effects require appropriate in vitro tumor models. However, the occurrence, progression, and migration of tumors involve spatiotemporal changes, cell-microenvironment and cell-cell interactions, and signal transmission in cells, which makes the construction of in vitro tumor models extremely challenging. In the past few years, advances in biomaterials and tissue engineering methods, especially development of the bioprinting technology, have paved the way for innovative platform technologies for in vitro cancer research. Bioprinting can accurately control the distribution of cells, active molecules, and biomaterials. Furthermore, this technology recapitulates the key characteristics of the tumor microenvironment and constructs in vitro tumor models with bionic structures and physiological systems. These models can be used as robust platforms to study tumor initiation, interaction with the microenvironment, angiogenesis, motility and invasion, as well as intra- and extravasation. Bioprinted tumor models can also be used for high-throughput drug screening and validation and provide the possibility for personalized cancer treatment research. This review describes the basic characteristics of the tumor and its microenvironment and focuses on the importance and relevance of bioprinting technology in the construction of tumor models. Research progress in the bioprinting of monocellular, multicellular, and personalized tumor models is discussed, and comprehensive application of bioprinting in preclinical drug screening and innovative therapy is reviewed. Finally, we offer our perspective on the shortcomings of the existing models and explore new technologies to outline the direction of future development and application prospects of next-generation tumor models.

Salivary biomarkers for diagnosis of systemic diseases and malignant tumors. A systematic review

Background

Saliva evaluation could be a possible alternative to blood and/or tissue analyses, for researching specific molecules associated to the presence of systemic diseases and malignancies. The present systematic review has been designed in order to answer to the question “are there significant associations between specific salivary biomarkers and diagnosis of systemic diseases or malignancies?”.

Material and Methods

The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used to guide the review. The combinations of “saliva” and “systemic diseases” or “diagnosis” or “biomarkers” or “cancers” or “carcinoma” or “tumors”, were used to search Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Endpoint of research has been set at May 2019. Studies were classified into 3 groups according to the type of disease investigated for diagnosis: 1) malignant tumors; 2) neurologic diseases and 3) inflammatory/metabolic/cardiovascular diseases. Assessment of quality has been assigned according to a series of questions proposed by the National Institute of Health. Level of evidence was assessed using the categories proposed in the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based medicine (CEMB) levels for diagnosis (2011).

Results

Seventy-nine studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifty-one (64%) investigated malignant tumors, 14 (17.5%) neurologic and 14 (18.5%) inflammatory/cardiovascular/metabolic diseases. Among studies investigating malignant tumors, 12 (23.5%) were scored as “good” and 11 of these reported statistically significant associations between salivary molecules and pathology. Two and 5 studies were found to have a good quality, among those evaluating the association between salivary biomarkers and neurologic and inflammatory/metabolic/cardiovascular diseases, respectively.

Conclusions

The present systematic review confirms the existence of some “good” quality evidence to support the role of peculiar salivary biomarkers for diagnosis of systemic diseases (e.g. lung cancer and EGFR).

Key words:Salivary diagnostics, biomarkers, systemic diseases, malignant tumors, early diagnosis.