4.7 Article

Serum MMPs and TIMPs: May be predictors of breast carcinogenesis?

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 412, Issue 7-8, Pages 537-540

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.11.037

Keywords

Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy; Hematoma; Interleukin; Organization

Funding

  1. Hellenic Anticancer Institute
  2. National University of Athens

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The involvement of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and their tissue inhibitors (TIMPs) in breast cancer has been documented on palpable lesions. This study aims to assess serum MMP1, MMP-2, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 in atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), lobular neoplasia (LN), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) specifically in non-palpable mammographic breast lesions. Methods: On women with benign (n = 65), precursor [ADH (n = 18) and LN (n = 15)], preinvasive [DCIS (n = 32)] and invasive [IDC (n = 28)] lesions the serum concentrations of MMP-1, MMP-2, TIMP-1, TIMP-2, TPS, and TPA were determined with immunoenzymatic assays. All women had non-palpable mammographic breast lesions of less than 10 mm in diameter, as estimated on the mammographic views. Statistical analysis followed. Results: TIMP-2 serum concentrations were positively associated with the severity of the lesion. On the contrary, MMP-2 levels were marginally negatively associated with severity; as evident, the MMP-2/TIMP-2 ratio significantly decreased along with severity. Regarding TIMP-1, TPS, TPA, and TIMP-1/IIMP-2, no significant associations were demonstrated. MMP-2 and the MMP-2/TIMP-2 ratio were significantly higher in the LN subgroup versus the ADH subgroup. Conclusion: TIMP-2 and MMP-2/TIMP-2 ratio may exhibit meaningful changes along with progression of lesions. Extracellular cell matrix remodeling in ductal and lobular lesions may follow distinct patterns. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available