Detection of elevated plasma levels of epidermal growth factor receptor before breast cancer diagnosis among hormone therapy users.

Applying advanced proteomic technologies to prospectively collected specimens from large studies is one means of identifying preclinical changes in plasma proteins that are potentially relevant to the early detection of diseases such as breast cancer. We conducted 14 independent quantitative proteomics experiments comparing pooled plasma samples collected from 420 estrogen receptor-positive (ER(+)) breast cancer patients ≤17 months before their diagnosis and matched controls. Based on the more than 3.4 million tandem mass spectra collected in the discovery set, 503 proteins were quantified, of which 57 differentiated cases from controls with a P value of <0.1. Seven of these proteins, for which quantitative ELISA assays were available, were assessed in an independent validation set. Of these candidates, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was validated as a predictor of breast cancer risk in an independent set of preclinical plasma samples for women overall [odds ratio (OR), 1.44; P = 0.0008] and particularly for current users of estrogen plus progestin (E + P) menopausal hormone therapy (OR, 2.49; P = 0.0001). Among current E + P users, the EGFR sensitivity for breast cancer risk was 31% with 90% specificity. Whereas the sensitivity and specificity of EGFR are insufficient for a clinically useful early detection biomarker, this study suggests that proteins that are elevated preclinically in women who go on to develop breast cancer can be discovered and validated using current proteomic technologies. Further studies are warranted to examine the role of EGFR and to discover and validate other proteins that could potentially be used for early detection of breast cancer.

Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin effects on the serum proteome.

BACKGROUND: Women's Health Initiative randomized trials of postmenopausal hormone therapy reported intervention effects on several clinical outcomes, with some important differences between estrogen alone and estrogen plus progestin. The biologic mechanisms underlying these effects, and these differences, have yet to be fully elucidated. METHODS: Baseline serum samples were compared with samples drawn 1 year later for 50 women assigned to active hormone therapy in both the estrogen-plus-progestin and estrogen-alone randomized trials, by applying an in-depth proteomic discovery platform to serum pools from 10 women per pool. RESULTS: In total, 378 proteins were quantified in two or more of the 10 pooled serum comparisons, by using strict identification criteria. Of these, 169 (44.7%) showed evidence (nominal P < 0.05) of change in concentration between baseline and 1 year for one or both of estrogen-plus-progestin and estrogen-alone groups. Quantitative changes were highly correlated between the two hormone-therapy preparations. A total of 98 proteins had false discovery rates < 0.05 for change with estrogen plus progestin, compared with 94 for estrogen alone. Of these, 84 had false discovery rates <0.05 for both preparations. The observed changes included multiple proteins relevant to coagulation, inflammation, immune response, metabolism, cell adhesion, growth factors, and osteogenesis. Evidence of differential changes also was noted between the hormone preparations, with the strongest evidence in growth factor and inflammation pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Serum proteomic analyses yielded a large number of proteins similarly affected by estrogen plus progestin and by estrogen alone and identified some proteins and pathways that appear to be differentially affected between the two hormone preparations; this may explain their distinct clinical effects.