|
Summary
March 2007, Vol. 7, No. 2, Pages 117-131
, DOI 10.1586/14737159.7.2.117
(doi:10.1586/14737159.7.2.117)
Review Multiple biomarkers in molecular oncology. I. Molecular diagnostics applications in cervical cancer detection Douglas P Malinowski The screening for cervical carcinoma and its malignant precursors (cervical neoplasia) currently employs morphology-based detection methods (Papanicolaou [Pap] smear) in addition to the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus. The combination of the Pap smear with human papillomavirus testing has achieved significant improvements in sensitivity for the detection of cervical disease. Diagnosis of cervical neoplasia is dependent upon histology assessment of cervical biopsy specimens. Attempts to improve the specificity of cervical disease screening have focused on the investigation of molecular biomarkers for adjunctive use in combination with the Pap smear. Active research into the genomic and proteomic alterations that occur during human papillomavirus-induced neoplastic transformation have begun to characterize some of the basic mechanisms inherent to the disease process of cervical cancer development. This research continues to demonstrate the complexity of multiple genomic and proteomic alterations that accumulate during the tumorigenesis process. Despite this diversity, basic patterns of uncontrolled signal transduction, cell cycle deregulation, activation of DNA replication and altered extracellular matrix interactions are beginning to emerge as common features inherent to cervical cancer development. Some of these gene or protein expression alterations have been investigated as potential biomarkers for screening and diagnostics applications. The contribution of multiple gene alterations in the development of cervical cancer suggests that the application of multiple biomarker panels has the potential to develop clinically useful molecular diagnostics. In this review, the application of biomarkers for the improvement of sensitivity and specificity of the detection of cervical neoplasia within cytology specimens will be discussed.
Cited byBen van Ommen, Jaap Keijer, Sandra G. Heil, Jim Kaput. (2009) Challenging homeostasis to define biomarkers for nutrition related health. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research 53:7, 795-804 Online publication date: 1-Aug-2009. CrossRef Ruba A. Halloush, Ilkser Akpolat, Qihui “Jim” Zhai, Mary R. Schwartz, Dina R. Mody. (2009) Comparison of ProEx C with p16INK4a and Ki-67 immunohistochemical staining of cell blocks prepared from residual liquid-based cervicovaginal material. Cancer 114:6, 474-480 Online publication date: 25-Jan-2009. CrossRef Janet S. Rader, James P. Malone, Julia Gross, Petra Gilmore, Rebecca A. Brooks, Loan Nguyen, Dan L. Crimmins, Sheng Feng, Jason D. Wright, Nicholas Taylor, Israel Zighelboim, Margo C. Funk, Phyllis C. Huettner, Jack H. Ladenson, David Gius, R. Reid Townsend. (2009) A unified sample preparation protocol for proteomic and genomic profiling of cervical swabs to identify biomarkers for cervical cancer screening. PROTEOMICS - CLINICAL APPLICATIONS 2:12, 1658-1669 Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009. CrossRef Teri A. Longacre, Christina S. Kong, Mark L. Welton. (2008) Diagnostic Problems in Anal Pathology. Advances in Anatomic Pathology 15:5, 263-278 Online publication date: 1-Oct-2008. CrossRef Riem E. Badr, Ann E. Walts, Fai Chung, Shikha Bose. (2008) BD ProEx C: A Sensitive and Specific Marker of HPV-associated Squamous Lesions of the Cervix. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology 32:6, 899-906 Online publication date: 1-Jul-2008. CrossRef Paula M. Mendes, Chun L. Yeung, Jon A. Preece. (2007) Bio-nanopatterning of Surfaces. Nanoscale Research Letters 2:8, 373-384 Online publication date: 8-Sep-2007. CrossRef
|
|
|