4.6 Review

Potential utility of miRNAs for liquid biopsy in breast cancer

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.940314

Keywords

liquid biopsy; breast cancer; miRNA; biomarker; biofluids

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. [82002820]
  3. [82072740]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, and traditional cancer detection methods are insufficient in detecting the complete cancer genomic landscape, necessitating the development of new strategies. Liquid biopsy has gained attention for its simplicity, early detection, and effective monitoring, with miRNAs potentially playing a crucial role in the diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer.
Breast cancer (BC) remains the most prevalent malignancy due to its incidence rate, recurrence, and metastasis in women. Conventional strategies of cancer detection- mammography and tissue biopsy lack the capacity to detect the complete cancer genomic landscape. Besides, they often give false- positive or negative results. The presence of this and other disadvantages such as invasiveness, high-cost, and side effects necessitates developing new strategies to overcome the BC burden. Liquid biopsy (LB) has been brought to the fore owing to its early detection, screening, prognosis, simplicity of the technique, and efficient monitoring. Remarkably, microRNAs (miRNAs)- gene expression regulators seem to play a major role as biomarkers detected in the samples of LB. Particularly, miR-21 and miR-155 among other possible candidates seem to serve as favorable biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of BC. Hence, this review will assess the potential utility of miRNAs as biomarkers and will highlight certain promising candidates for the LB approach in the diagnosis and management of BC that may optimize the patient outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available