phd thesis on ovarian cancer

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Prevalence of human papillomavirus detection in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Soumia cherif.

1 Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Gynecology, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany

2 Laboratory of Biochemistry, Environment, and Agrifood, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques-Mohammedia, Hassan II University, 8 Casablanca, Morocco

Abdessamad Amine

Sarah thies, eliane t. taube.

3 Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute for Pathology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany

Elena Ioana Braicu

Jalid sehouli, andreas m. kaufmann, associated data.

We conducted a meta-analysis of published data to update and estimate the prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer. A comprehensive literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles published from 1989 until 2020 by searching Web of Sciences, Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library Central databases were gathered. A pooled estimation of HPV prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on a random effect model. Quantitative assessment of heterogeneity was explored using Cochrane test and I 2 . Additionally, publication bias, sensitivity, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses were also performed. Twenty-nine studies involving 2280 patients with ovarian cancer were included. The statistical heterogeneity was high ( I 2 = 88%, P <0.0001). The pooled prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer cases was 15.9% (95% CI, 11–22). In subgroup analyses, the highest prevalence of HPV was reported by studies from Asia (30.9%; 95% CI, 20–44) and Eastern Europe (29.3%; 95% CI, 4.4–78). Furthermore, the most frequently detected HPV genotype was HPV16 (54%; 95% CI, 27.9–55), followed by HPV18 (23.2%; 95% CI, 18.8–28.2). Our meta-analysis suggests a great difference in the prevalence of HPV detected in ovarian cancer by different studies, which is not seen in strongly HPV-associated cancers such as cervical cancer. However, the prevalence varied markedly by geographic region. Considering the substantial heterogeneity found, more studies with control groups and precise assays measuring HPV mRNA expression are needed to further evaluate the link and causative aetiology between HPV and ovarian cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10096-021-04282-7.

Ovarian cancer remains the most life-threatening malignancy of the female genital tract mainly because of the lack of early clinical symptoms and early detection (FIGO stage I–II) [ 1 ]. The stage of ovarian cancer is an important prognostic factor at diagnosis [ 2 , 3 ]. This malignancy is typically diagnosed at a late stage (FIGO stage III–IV) with a 5 year-survival rate reaching 20% whereas it is 80–90% for patients with localized tumor (stage I) [ 4 , 5 ]. Despite the considerable advances in highlighting risk factors, the pathogenesis and aetiology of ovarian cancer are still unclear [ 1 ]. However, an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer has been strongly correlated to genetic mutations (BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes), family history of ovarian, breast, or colon cancer, age, postmenopausal hormonal therapy use, infertility, and nulliparity [ 4 ]. Besides these findings, a current theory, supported by epidemiological data, hypothesizes that persistent viral infection and chronic inflammation may play a role in the carcinogenesis of ovarian cancer [ 2 ]. Thus, it is hypothesized that viral infection may contribute to ovarian cancer.

HPV has been identified as an etiological agent of numerous proliferative epithelial lesions in the skin and various mucosal sites, including the lower genital tract (of both sexes) and diverse sites of the oropharyngeal area and the upper aerodigestive tract [ 6 ]. However, its role in the development of cancers in the upper genital tract, such as endometrial and ovarian cancer is still under debate [ 7 ]. In fact, studies carried out so far failed to associate firmly the presence of HPV with the occurrence of these malignancies. Some reported a positive correlation while others indicated negative results [ 1 , 6 , 8 ]. These discordant findings might be due to the fact that most studies on this issue were observational reports without including control groups [ 2 , 9 ]. Furthermore, controversial results might be due to variation in the geographic distribution of HPV, and the technique used to identify HPV infection.

Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses have studied the association between HPV and ovarian cancer by investigating the prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer tissues [ 2 , 10 ]. The results, however, were conflicting. Besides, data from the Middle East had not been included. As more studies concerning HPV detection in ovarian cancer have been published recently, we undertook the present meta-analysis to update and better define this relationship.

Material and methods

Study identification and data extraction.

Two investigators (S.C. and A.A.) performed a systematic literature research independently by using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central between 1989 until 2020, using the following Medical Subject Heading terms (MeSH) and text words: “Human papillomavirus”, “HPV”, “ovarian malignancies”, “ovarian neoplasm”, and “ovarian cancer”. The investigators extracted independently data from identified studies; additional studies were retrieved and reviewed. In the case of discrepancy, the decision on inclusion/exclusion was made by discussion. The meta-analysis was performed in agreement with PRISMA criteria.

Data extraction was carried out, in an Excel sheet, to record details of the first author, country of publication, method of detection, histological type, type of specimen, sample size, HPV genotype, and numbers of HPV-positive and negative patients.

Study selection

The following criteria had to be met to include studies in this meta-analysis: (1) observational studies published between 1989 until 2020 with data on the association of HPV in ovarian cancer and including at least 5 cases, (2) written in English, and (3) published as a full peer-reviewed article. The exclusion criteria were the following: (1) studies where a serological test is used to detect HPV, (2) studies not meeting the inclusion criteria, and (3) studies limited to animals.

Statistical analysis

The pooled prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by using the Mantel-Haenszel method of DerSimonian and Laird method (random-effects or fixed-effects model). The heterogeneity was measured by the Cochran Q test ( P < 0.10 demonstrates a high level of heterogeneity) [ 11 , 12 ]. Moreover, the rate of inconsistency ( I 2 ) was also calculated (values of I 2 from 50 to 75% correspond to moderate to high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively) [ 13 ]. If the heterogeneity was not substantial, the pooled rate with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated using the fixed-effect model. When statistically significant heterogeneity was found ( I 2 >50), the pooled rate with 95% CI was calculated based on the random-effects model. Then, a subgroup analysis was employed to evaluate the influence of several factors on the overall results. A sensitivity analysis was also performed, by excluding one study each time, to assess the impact of each study on the strength and stability of our results. Meta-regression analysis was used to examine the association of the geographical distribution of the studies, specimen type and detection methods with the prevalence of HPV. The statistical analyses were performed by using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis software, version 3 (Englewood, USA).

Publication bias

The publication bias was evaluated visually by constructing a Funnel plot. It was created by plotting the log prevalence of HPV vs the standard error. Their symmetry was evaluated by Egger’s regression test and the Begg and Mazumdar adjusted rank correlation test, all P -values were set on two sides, those less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Description of studies

Of the 192 articles initially identified by the investigators, 29 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The flowchart explaining the study selection is displayed in Fig. ​ Fig.1. 1 . The main characteristics of the studies are presented in Supplementary information 1 . In 19/29 studies, the histological types were mentioned.

Flow diagram of the studies selected for this meta-analysis

A total of 2280 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were 6 studies from North America [ 14 – 19 ], 8 studies from the Middle East [ 1 , 8 , 20 – 25 ], 7 studies were conducted in Asia [ 7 , 26 – 31 ] and the remaining 8 studies were reported from Europe [ 6 , 9 , 32 – 37 ]. As for the type of specimen utilized, Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FPPE) tissues were used in 19 studies [ 1 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 20 – 27 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 36 ], in the remaining studies, frozen [ 7 , 14 , 19 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 37 ] and fresh tissues [ 16 , 28 ] were utilized.

The most used technique for the detection of HPV was PCR (25 studies) using the L1 consensus primers either by a single-step PCR with GP5+/GP6+ [ 9 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 36 ] or MY09/MY11 [ 16 , 17 , 20 ] primer set or by nested PCR using primer pairs GP5+/GP6 + and MY09/MY11 [ 1 , 8 , 21 , 22 ]. In 7 studies where specific primers for high-risk HPV and low-risk HPV [ 6 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 29 , 37 ] were used, 2 studies used commercial PCR kits (High-risk Human Papillomavirus Multiplex screening genesig® kit and HPV detection Madison® kit) [ 14 , 37 ], whereas others used specific primers for E6/E7 regions [ 6 , 7 , 15 , 18 , 29 ]. Also, specific primers for HPV16 and 18 were utilized in one study [ 7 ]. Besides, four studies combined detection techniques either by using PCR with immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) [ 19 , 33 ] or by combining ISH with IHC [ 24 , 27 ].

Generally, HPV16 [ 1 , 7 , 21 – 23 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 37 ] and HPV18 [ 1 , 6 , 7 , 21 , 26 , 28 , 33 ] were the most common genotypes detected. Also, cases with HPV33 [ 1 , 20 , 26 ], HPV45 [ 21 , 22 ], and HPV6 [ 20 , 31 ] were found. Multiple infections were also reported, in 3 studies a coinfection with two HPV types was reported [ 21 , 22 , 29 ]. Furthermore, in 2 studies, a coinfection with three HPV types was detected [ 21 , 22 ] (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Subgroup characteristics of HPV in ovarian cancer and borderline lesions by region, HPV genotypes, detection methods, and biological specimens of the included studies

PCR , polymerase chain reaction; HPV , human papillomavirus; FFPE , Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded; 506 ISH : In-situ hybridization

Meta-analysis

In our Meta-analysis, significant heterogeneity between the different included studies was observed: Q = 231.4, df( Q )= 28, I 2 =88%, P ≤0.001. Q represents the distance of each study from the mean effect, if studies have the same rate of prevalence, Q would be equal to df (degree of freedom). In our study, Q is higher than df, which is an evidence of variation between studies.

Because of the substantial heterogeneity found ( I 2 = 88%), we applied the random-effect Model, with a pooled rate of 15.9% (95% CI, 11–22). Besides, a large variation of HPV prevalence across the included studies was observed (range 0–81%). The test for the overall effect is Z= −7.5, P ≤0.001 (Fig.  2 ). Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected that the true prevalence of HPV is comparable between the included studies.

Forest plot showing HPV rate and 95% confidence intervals in ovarian cancer studies based on random-effect model

Subgroup and meta-regression analyses

A subgroup analysis was performed to investigate if the results found for all studies included would apply separately for the stratified data according to geographical region, type of specimen, or detection method. The results of the subgroup analysis are shown in Tables ​ Tables1 1 and ​ and2 2 .

Subgroup analysis by categorizing the data according to the geographic region, HPV genotypes, detection methods, and biological specimens of the included studies

Stratifying by geographical region, the highest rates of HPV detection in ovarian cancer tissue were found in Asia (30.9%; 95% CI, 20–44) ranging from 6% to 70%, Eastern Europe (29.3%; 95% CI, 4.4–78; range, 7.4–81.5%), and in the Middle East (21.6 %; 95% CI, 13–33.4; range, 1.9–42%). The lowest prevalence was detected in North America (0%; 95% CI, 0–0.02) (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Also, the test of the null hypothesis yields a Q -value =59.4, df( Q )=5, and P -value <0.001 (Table ​ (Table2), 2 ), indicating that the effect size differs by geographical regions. Of note also within a given region the variation in prevalence is substantial.

Results of subgroup analysis based on specimen types suggest that HPV rate is slightly greater when FFPE tissues were examined (16.7%; 95% CI, 11.6–23.4) compared to frozen tissue (14.1%; 95% CI, 3–39.9) or fresh tissue (5.8%; 95% CI, 2.3–13.8). The overall Q -value, df( Q ) and P -value for specimen type subgroup were 4.9 with 2 df and 0.08, respectively. Thus, statistically, the effect size does not differ by the specimen type.

Regarding detection methods of HPV, the lowest prevalence of HPV is found when IHC is used (8.5%; 95% CI, 2.9–22.3) [ 23 ]. A greater prevalence was observed when more sensitive or combined techniques (PCR and ISH or IHC; southern hybridization and IHC) (31%; 95%CI, 24.4–38.5) were utilized. For the detection method stratification, the overall Q -value is 31 with 5 df, and the corresponding P -value is 0.1. Thus, the effect size does not differ significantly by the detection method.

Taken together, the meta-regression analyses showed a significant association of HPV prevalence with geographic distribution ( P ≤ 0.001). However, the specimen type ( P =0.19) and HPV detection methods ( P =0.3) were not statistically associated with HPV prevalence.

Sensitivity analysis

To detect a potential bias related to the quality of the included studies, we performed a sensitivity analysis by calculating HPV prevalence when excluding one study at a time. Figure ​ Figure3 3 shows that after the exclusion of each study, no significant effect on the overall prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer patients was observed.

Sensitivity analysis showing the impact of exclusion of any study on the summary effect

A visual inspection of the funnel plot showed an asymmetry, and a one-tailed p-value of Begg´s test and Egger´s regression test were 0.006 and 0.5, respectively (Figure 4 ). Suggesting that there is a significant publication bias.

Funnel plot of studies included in the meta-analysis. The distribution of the studies (dots) is asymmetric suggesting an evidence of publication bias that is also found by Egger’s regression test ( P =0.006) and Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation ( P =0.5)

Since the first report on HPV infection in ovarian cancer published by Kaufman et al. in 1987 [ 38 ] using southern blot hybridization, researchers have explored the potential involvement of HPV in ovarian cancerogenesis in several geographical regions and by more sensitive and specific methods. However, the association between HPV and ovarian cancer remains controversial. In the current meta-analysis, 2280 cases with ovarian cancer were investigated. In 19/29 studies where HPV was detected, 2 reported a cause-effect relation by detecting E6/E7 oncogenes expression or HR-HPV viral integration [ 21 , 31 ]; while in 10 studies no HPV was found. The overall pooled prevalence of HPV was 15.9% (95% CI, 11–22), and the prevalence of detection ranged from 0 to 81%. This result is in accordance with previous meta-analyses published in 2013 [ 2 , 10 ]. Nevertheless, in the present meta-analysis, six publications from the Middle East and four recent studies were additionally included.

This overall low prevalence of HPV found in ovarian cancer compared to the strongly HPV-associated malignancies, i.e., cervical cancer, might be explained by the adaptation and affinity of HPV to certain squamous cells in the cervical epithelium, or/and by the vulnerability of the transformation zone of the cervix. The latter is a niche of cells with an embryonic characteristic such as cuboidal epithelial cells, reserve cells, or potentially embryonal stem cells, which have been proposed as targeted cells by HPV infection [ 39 – 43 ]. However, HPV target cells in the ovarian epithelium have not been described yet.

Substantial heterogeneity between studies was found ( I 2 =88%, P ≤0.001) and an asymmetric funnel plot was observed. These findings suggest a wide variation between study results. This is supported by major differences in terms of sample size, geographic distribution, type of specimen, detection methods, and the period of the study. Thus, to balance the selection bias, subgroup analyses were carried out.

It has been reported that geographical differences in the prevalence of HPV might be due to biological and geographic interaction between HPV variants and the host immunogenetic factors such as GST (glutathione-S-transferase), HLA (human leukocyte antigen), MDM2 (Mouse double minute 2 homolog), FAS (fatty acid synthase) gene promoter-670 and p53 codon 72 polymorphisms [ 44 , 45 ]. Furthermore, impairment of the cellular immunity through malnutrition, inflammation, HIV, and microbial infection, genetic predisposition, lifestyles; might contribute to a higher incidence of HPV acquisition in some regions [ 46 ]. Moreover, in cervical cancer, an association between the prevalence of high risk-HPV infection in the general population and the incidence of this malignancy has been demonstrated [ 47 ]. Also, several researchers have found regional differences in the prevalence of HPV genotypes in invasive cervical cancer specimens. In a meta-analysis conducted on 85 studies, HPV16 was predominant in cervical squamous cell carcinoma, with a prevalence of 63% in North America and 46% in Asia [ 47 ]. Similarly, in a study conducted on 10,575 cases of invasive cervical cancer from 38 different countries tested for HPV, researchers found that HPV16 and 18 had the highest relative contributions in North America (79%) and Oceania (79%), followed by Africa (71%) and Asia (71%) [ 48 ]. In our subgroup analysis, stratified by geographical distribution, studies carried out in Asia (30.9%; 95% CI, 20–44) and Eastern Europe (29.3%; 95% CI, 4.4–78) had the highest prevalence of HPV in ovarian cancer detected while no HPV association was detected in North America. Furthermore, the meta-regression showed that geographic distribution explains the variation in worldwide HPV prevalence described in ovarian cancer.

FFPE blocks are a valuable source to conduct retrospective studies. However, a prolonged fixation time with formalin causes a cross-linking of proteins and nucleic acids and also random breakages in nucleotide sequences [ 49 ]. Besides, fixation protocols including non-buffered formalin may contribute to decreasing DNA integrity and reduced HPV detection rate. Furthermore, false positivity due to carryover contamination might occur if FFPE blocks were not processed under strict conditions [ 48 ]. On the other hand, frozen tissues allow better DNA preservation, but require constant low-temperature maintenance [ 50 ]. In the present study, the HPV detection rate was slightly higher when frozen tissues were used. Nevertheless, the subgroup and the meta-regression analyses showed that specimen type does not explain the variation of HPV prevalence.

Currently, HPV detection relies on molecular techniques that allow a high sensitivity and specificity of detection [ 51 ]. Usually, HPV detection by PCR can be performed either by using a single PCR primer set such as (i) L1 consensus primers MY09/MY1, GP5+/GP6+, or SPF10 primers followed by type-specific probe-based detection, direct sequencing or restriction-fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), (ii) by nested PCR using a combination of MY/GP primers; (iii) or by using type-specific primers [ 52 ]. Nevertheless, a single PCR primer set underestimates the prevalence of HPV positivity, but the combination of MY/GP in nested PCR is considered the most sensitive DNA-based test that allows detection of low levels of HPV [ 53 ]. In the present meta-analysis, PCR was the most often used technique (in 26/29 studies). However, the prevalence of HPV in ovarian tissues was the highest when 2 different techniques were combined (PCR and ISH or IHC) (31%; 95%CI, 24.4–38.5), and when nested PCR GP5+/GP6+ followed by reamplification with MY09/MY11 was used (29.1%; 95%CI, 25–33). Furthermore, a lower prevalence of HPV was found by using type-specific primers either by targeting E6/E7 regions or by using designed type-specific primers (12.7%; 95%CI, 4.7–10.3).

The overexpression of E6 and E7 oncoproteins are required to maintain malignant transformation in HPV-related cancers, which should be detected by specific primers for E6/E7 regions [ 54 , 55 ]. Contrary to the well-established pathway of E6 and E7 in the cervical cancerogenesis, it has been discussed that the molecular mechanism of cancerogenesis in HPV-infected ovarian epithelium operates differently. This hypothesis was stated by Kisseljova et al. [ 53 ], who were unable to detect HPV16 DNA by E6/E7 primers despite finding HPV-association in their samples investigated. Also, Roos et al. [ 56 ] reported evidence of HPV presence in ovarian cancer in North America by detecting transcripts of HPV18 oncogenes in ovarian cancer transcriptomes (by RNA-Seq) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Hence, a more sensitive assay, based on mRNA HPV oncogene expression is needed, to clarify the role of this microorganism in ovarian cancerogenesis by comparing viral oncogene expression in cancer samples and adjacent normal tissues.

According to Bosch et al. [ 57 ], HPV16 is the most frequent genotypes detected in cervical cancer cases in most countries (50% to 60%), followed by HPV18 (10–20%), HPV45 (4–8%), and HPV31 (1–5%). Comparable results were found in our subgroup analysis stratified by HPV genotypes.

Coinfection with more than one HPV anogenital type was observed in more than 50% of sexually active women through their life [ 58 ]. Several studies showed that the presence of multiple HPV genotypes is associated with an increased risk of high-grade lesions at the cervix [ 59 – 61 ]. Besides, coinfections with alpha-9 genotypes increase the risk of cervical cancer 5.3 fold compared to a coinfection with alpha-7 genotypes [ 62 ]. Moreover, Senapati et al. [ 63 ], revealed that women infected with different genotypes in a phylogenetically related clad had a higher risk of cervical carcinoma in comparison to women infected with unrelated phylogenetic clad. Also, an in vitro study reported that coinfection of a single cell with HPV16 and HPV18 induces a replication interference between them [ 64 ]. Our meta-analysis revealed that an HPV16/18 coinfection was the most observed (17.2%) followed by HPV16/45 (9.6%). However, in one study where a coinfection with HPV16/18 was reported [ 29 ], 2 of 3 positive cases had an HPV16/18 coinfection that could potentially be a result of cross-contamination while sectioning FFPE blocks, knowing that no blank FFPE block was sectioned between cases to reveal any carryover contamination. Indeed, in order to prove an ethiological involvement of HPV in a certain cancer development, e.g. in HNSCC, recently a very elaborate and strict methodological process has been described involving (i) control for carryover by HPV free tissue sections between experimental blocks, (ii) measurement of HPV oncogene expression by detection of E6 and/or E7 mRNA, and (iii) detection p16 ink4a upregulation [ 65 ].

There were several limitations in our meta-analysis. First, in 22 studies, no control group was selected and the sample size was small in other studies, which does not allow to distinguish the difference between malignant and control groups. Second, few studies, reported HPV genotypes by histological type. The latter points out the need for more studies that take into account the histologic type of the malignancy. Third, no HPV oncogene expression was measured to investigate its role in ovarian cancerogenesis by comparing viral oncogene expression in malignant and normal tissues. Fourth, no carryover contamination control was performed while processing FFPE blocks, which might lead to an overestimation of HPV prevalence. Fifth, coinfection with more than one HPV genotype was evaluated in just 3 studies which did not allow us to investigate if the presence of multiple HPV genotypes could be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Sixth, the heterogeneity between studies was substantial and publication bias was found, this might be explained by methodological differences and the fact that scientific journals are more likely to publish studies that report positive results. Seventh, the majority of the included studies reported the studied population age in mean, so we were unable to perform a subgroup analysis by age group or perform meta-regression analysis, thus the discrepancy in prevalence could be due to differences in the age range of included studies. Furthermore, the data discrepancy might be also explained by the variation of HPV genotypes across geographical regions. Eighth, none of the included studies has mentioned if patients received HPV vaccine, which could be of interest to assess the efficacy of prophylactic vaccines for the potential prevention of HPV infections in the upper female genital tract.

Considering that HPV plays a role in a rising number of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, it has been reported that patients with HPV+ tumors have a favorable prognosis, and HPV-selective therapies are under investigation. If there is a potential implication of HPV in ovarian cancerogenesis, treatment and maybe prognosis, HPV-association of ovarian cancer needs further investigation.

Our meta-analysis suggests a great difference in the prevalence of HPV detected in ovarian cancer which is not seen in strongly HPV-associated cancers such as cervical cancer. However, further studies are needed, using more precise assays that identify active infection by testing HPV oncoprotein expression and informative biomarkers like p16 upregulation to prove the causality of HPV detection with cellular transformation. Also, other covariates such as ethnicity, age, and lifestyle have to be considered.

Supplementary information

Characteristics of studies on HPV in ovarian cancer and borderline ovarian tumors included in the meta-analysis. (DOCX 25 kb)

Availability of data and materials

The datasets and referenced literature supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional supplementary file.

Author contribution

Conception and design of the study: S.C., A.M.K., and J.S.; methodology: S.C., A.M.K., A.A., S.T, and E.T.; formal analysis: S.C.; Search: S.C. and A.A.; data extraction: S.C. and A.A. writing: S.C.; review and editing: A.M.K.; supervision: A.M.K., J.S., and E.B. All author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) as a grant scholarship and part of the PhD thesis of S.C., Funding programme: Research Grants - Doctoral Programmes in Germany, 2017/18.

Declarations

Not applicable

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Advertisement

Cancer Biomarkers: Status and Its Future Direction

• Review Article
• Published: 20 February 2023
• Volume 85 , pages 1323–1335, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Tongbram Malemnganbi Chanu 1 ,
• Lakhon Kma 2 &
• R. N. Sharan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7120-8023 1  

256 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Biomarkers are helpful for disease diagnosis, monitoring disease progression, predicting disease recurrence, treatment monitoring, and efficacy, especially in the domain of cancer management and therapeutics. Clinical cancer biomarker utilization is progressively increasing with increase in and better access to healthcare by the growing populations worldwide. Early cancer detection and therapeutics enhancement remain at the core to increase our cancer management and control abilities. A biomarker can help detect cancer at an early stage as well as aid the clinicians in individualization of therapeutics enhancing the clinical efficacy of cancer therapy. Over the years, several biomarkers have been established and are in regular use. Nonetheless, discovering new cancer biomarkers, which are more sensitive, specific, and clinically convenient, remains important. The current review critically analyzes the existing and established cancer biomarkers as well as futuristic biomarkers for clinicians, surgeons, oncologists, and researchers. A tabular summary at the end of the article and compilation of up to date literature in the domain should be useful ready reckoners for clinicians, oncologists, and researchers alike.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Hepatocellular carcinoma: molecular mechanism, targeted therapy, and biomarkers

Breast cancer: epidemiology and etiology.

SEOM-GEICAM-SOLTI clinical guidelines for early-stage breast cancer (2022)

Abbreviations.

• Average cancer therapy

Alpha-fetoprotein

ADP-ribose polymer adduct

Breast cancer–associated genes

Cancer antigen 125

Cancer antigen 15–3

Cancer antigen 19–9 or carbohydrate antigen 19–9

Cancer antigen 27–29

Cancer biomarkers

Clinical cancer biomarkers

Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A

Carcinoembryonic antigen

Cancer therapy or cancer therapeutics

Experimental cancer biomarkers

Human chorionic gonadotrophin

Human epididymis protein 4

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

Heat-shock protein

Multivariate index assay

Mammalian target of rapamycin

Nuclear factor 1-C

Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm

Personalized and precise cancer therapy

Prostate-specific antigen

Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm

Thyroglobulin

Vascular endothelial growth factor

Lassere MN (2008) The Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema: a review of the biomarker-surrogate literature and a proposal for a criterion-based, quantitative, multidimensional hierarchical levels of evidence schema for evaluating the status of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints. Stat Methods Med Res 17:303–340

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization & International Programme on Chemical Safety (1993) Biomarkers and risk assessment: concepts and principles / published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. WHO https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39037

Henry NL, Hayes DF (2012) Cancer biomarkers. Mol Oncol 6:140–146

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Simon R, Roychowdhury S (2013) Implementing personalized cancer genomics in clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12:358–369

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, Gianni L, Baselga J, Bell R, Jackisch C, Cameron D (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1659–1672

Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E, Zaluski J, Chang Chien CR, Makhson A, D’Haens G, Pintér T, Lim R, Bodoky G, Roh JK (2009) Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360:1408–1417

Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Walker MG, Watson D, Park T, Hiller W (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826

Coleman RL, Herzog TJ, Chan DW, Munroe DG, Pappas TC, Smith A, Zhang Z, Wolf J (2016) Validation of a second-generation multivariate index assay for malignancy risk of adnexal masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:82–93

Article   Google Scholar  

U. S. Food & Drug Administration (2021) List of qualified biomarkers. F D A https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biomarker-qualification-program/list-qualified-biomarkers

James EK (2020) Carcinogenesis. An introduction to interdisciplinary toxicology. Handbook of toxicology pathology (second edition). Academic Press, p 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813602-7.00008-9

Handy DE, Castro R, Loscalzo J (2011) Epigenetic modifications: basic mechanisms and role in cardiovascular disease. Circulation 123:2145–2156

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Collins FS, Varmus H (2015) A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 372:793–805

Nora MAA, Connor T, Ishwarlal J (2021) Genetics, epigenetic mechanism. StatPearls

World Health Organization (2022) Cancer fact sheet. WHO, Geneva. http://www.who.int/health-topics/cancer#tab=tab_1/ . Accessed in Feb 2023

Kirwan A, Utratna M, O’Dwyer ME, Joshi L, Kilcoyne M (2015) Glycosylation-based serum biomarkers for cancer diagnostics and prognostics. Biomed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/490531

Crandall BF, Lau HL (1981) Alpha-fetoprotein: a review. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 15:127–185

Mizejewski GJ (2018) Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) and gastric cancer: why is lethality more prevalent in AFP-secreting than non-secreting tumors? Cancer Ther Oncol Int J. https://doi.org/10.19080/CTOIJ.2018.09.555753

AlSalloom AAM (2016) An update of biochemical markers of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Health Sci 10:121–136

Google Scholar  

Asahina Y, Tsuchiya K, Nishimura T, Muraoka M, Suzuki Y, Tamaki N, Yasui Y, Hosokawa T, Ueda K, Nakanishi H, Itakura J (2013) α-fetoprotein levels after interferon therapy and risk of hepatocarcinogenesis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol 58:1253–1262

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Albrecht H, Carraway KL (2011) MUC1 and MUC4: switching the emphasis from large to small. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 26:261–271

PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mukhopadhyay P, Chakraborty S, Ponnusamy MP, Lakshmanan I, Jain M, Batra SK (2011) Mucins in the pathogenesis of breast cancer: implications in diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1815:224–240

Mudduwa LK, Wijayaratne GB, Peiris HH, Gunasekera SN, Abeysiriwardhana D, Liyanage N (2018) Elevated pre-surgical CA15-3: does it predict the short-term disease-free survival of breast cancer patients without distant metastasis? Int J Women Health 10:329–335

Duffy MJ, Evoy D, McDermott EW (2010) CA 15–3: uses and limitation as a biomarker for breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 411:1869–1874

Perkins GL, Slater ED, Sanders GK, Prichard JG (2003) Serum tumor markers. Am Fam Physician 68:1075–1082

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Koprowski H, Steplewski Z, Mitchell K, Herlyn M, Herlyn D, Fuhrer P (1979) Colorectal carcinoma antigens detected by hybridoma antibodies. Somatic Cell Genet 5:957–971

Pall M, Iqbal J, Singh SK, Rana SV (2012) CA 19–9 as a serum marker in urothelial carcinoma. Urol Ann 4:98–101

Kim S, Park BK, Seo JH, Choi J, Choi JW, Lee CK, Chung JB, Park Y, Kim DW (2020) Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 elevation without evidence of malignant or pancreatobiliary diseases. Sci Rep 10:1–9

Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS (2012) The clinical utility of serum CA 19–9 in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an evidence based appraisal. J Gastrointest Oncol 3:105–119

Kabel AM (2017) Tumor markers of breast cancer: new perspectives. J Oncol Sci 3:5–11

Vaidyanathan K, Vasudevan DM (2012) Organ specific tumor markers: what’s new? Indian J Clin Biochem 27:110–120

Nikhil TG, Dolly R, Staros EB (2021) CA 27–29: reference range, interpretation, collection and panels. Medscape https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2087535-overview

Lin DC, Genzen JR (2018) Concordance analysis of paired cancer antigen (CA) 15–3 and 27.29 testing. Breast Cancer Res Treat 167:269–276

Muinao T, Boruah HP, Pal M (2018) Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in ovarian cancer and the potential roles of cancer stem cells - an updated review. Exp Cell Res 362:1–10

Menczer J, Ben-Shem E, Golan A, Levy T (2015) The significance of normal pre-treatment levels of CA125 (< 35 U/mL) in epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Rambam. Maimonides. Med J. https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10180

Pepin K, Carmen MD, Brown A, Dizon DS (2014) CA 125 and epithelial ovarian cancer: role in screening, diagnosis, and surveillance. Am J Hematol 10:22–29

Rustin GJ, Bast RC, Kelloff GJ, Barrett JC, Carter SK, Nisen PD, Sigman CC, Parkinson DR, Ruddon RW (2004) Use of CA-125 in clinical trial evaluation of new therapeutic drugs for ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10:3919–3926

Pignata S, Cannella L, Leopardo D, Bruni GS, Facchini G, Pisano C (2011) Follow-up with CA125 after primary therapy of advanced ovarian cancer: in favor of continuing to prescribe CA125 during follow-up. Ann Oncol 22:viii40–viii44

Bast RC Jr (2010) CA 125 and the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer: a reasonably accurate biomarker for a difficult disease. Cancer 116:2850–2853

Gold P, Freedman SO (1965) Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinomata by immunological tolerance and absorption techniques. J Exp Med 121:439–462

Zhong W, Yu Z, Zhan J, Yu T, Lin Y, Xia ZS, Yuan YH, Chen QK (2015) Association of serum levels of CEA, CA199, CA125, CYFRA21-1 and CA72-4 and disease characteristics in colorectal cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 21:83–95

Saito G, Sadahiro S, Kamata H, Miyakita H, Okada K, Tanaka A, Suzuki T (2017) Monitoring of serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels after curative resection of colon cancer: cut off values determined according to preoperative levels enhance the diagnostic accuracy for recurrence. Oncology 92:276–282

Xie HL, Gong YZ, Kuang JA, Gao F, Tang SY, Gan JL (2019) The prognostic value of the postoperative serum CEA levels/preoperative serum CEA levels ratio in colorectal cancer patients with high preoperative serum CEA levels. Cancer Manag Res 11:7499–7511

Sørensen CG, Karlsson WK, Pommergaard HC, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J (2016) The diagnostic accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen to detect colorectal cancer recurrence–a systematic review. Int J Surg 25:134–144

Wang Z, Wang W, Xu S, Wang S, Tu Y, Xiong Y, Mei J, Wang C (2016) The role of MAPK signaling pathway in the Her-2-positive meningiomas. Oncol Rep 36:685–695

Yan M, Schwaederle M, Arguello D, Millis SZ, Gatalica Z, Kurzrock R (2015) HER2 expression status in diverse cancers: review of results from 37,992 patients. Cancer Metastasis Rev 34:157–164

Furrer D, Paquet C, Jacob S, Diorio C (2018) The Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) as a prognostic and predictive biomarker: molecular insights into HER2 activation and diagnostic implications. Cancer Prognosis. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78271

Wang XY, Zheng ZX, Sun Y, Bai YH, Shi YF, Zhou LX, Yao YF, Wu AW, Cao DF (2019) Significance of HER2 protein expression and HER2 gene amplification in colorectal adenocarcinomas. World J Gastrointest Oncol 11:335–347

Ferraro S, Panteghini M (2019) Making new biomarkers a reality: the case of serum human epididymis protein 4. Clin Chem Lab Med 57:1284–1294

Lu R, Sun X, Xiao R, Zhou L, Gao X, Guo L (2012) Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) plays a key role in ovarian cancer cell adhesion and motility. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 419:274–280

Zhu L, Zhuang H, Wang H, Tan M, Schwab CL, Deng L, Gao J, Hao Y, Li X, Gao S, Liu J (2016) Overexpression of HE4 (human epididymis protein 4) enhances proliferation, invasion and metastasis of ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 7:729–744

Moradi A, Srinivasan S, Clements J, Batra J (2019) Beyond the biomarker role: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer microenvironment. Cancer Metastasis Rev 38:333–346

Hong SK (2014) Kallikreins as biomarkers for prostate cancer. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/526341

Siemińska L, Borowski A, Marek B, Nowak M, Kajdaniuk D, Warakomski J, Kos-Kudła B (2018) Serum concentrations of adipokines in men with prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia. Endokrynol Pol 69:120–127

Duffy MJ (2020) Biomarkers for prostate cancer: prostate-specific antigen and beyond. Clin Chem Lab Med 58:326–339

Tamhane S, Gharib H (2016) Thyroid nodule update on diagnosis and management. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol 2:1–10

Prpić M, Franceschi M, Romić M, Jukić T, Kusić Z (2018) Thyroglobulin as a tumor marker in differentiated thyroid cancer–clinical considerations. Acta Clin Croat 57:518–526

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hasanbegovic L, Alicelebic S, Sljivo N (2015) Comparison of specific ovarian tumor markers by elecsys analyzer 2010. Acta Inform Med 23:86–89

Ueland FR, Desimone CP, Seamon LG, Miller RA, Goodrich S, Podzielinski I, Sokoll L, Smith A, Van Nagell Jr JR, Zhang Z (2011) Effectiveness of a multivariate index assay in the preoperative assessment of ovarian tumors. Obstet Gynecol 117:1289–1297

Zhang Z, Chan DW (2010) The road from discovery to clinical diagnostics: lessons learned from the first FDA-cleared in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay of proteomic biomarkers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 19:2995–2999

Moore RG, McMeekin DS, Brown AK, DiSilvestro P, Miller MC, Allard WJ, Gajewski W, Kurman R, Bast RC Jr, Skates SJ (2009) A novel multiple marker bioassay utilizing HE4 and CA125 for the prediction of ovarian cancer in patients with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol 112:40–46

Anton C, Carvalho FM, Oliveira EI, Maciel GA, Baracat EC, Carvalho JP (2012) A comparison of CA125, HE4, risk ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and risk malignancy index (RMI) for the classification of ovarian masses. Clinics 67:437–441

Wang J, Gao J, Yao H, Wu Z, Wang M, Qi J (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of serum HE4, CA125 and ROMA in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumor Biol 35:6127–6138

Al Musalhi K, Al Kindi M, Al Aisary F, Ramadhan F, Al Rawahi T, Al Hatali K, Mula-Abed WA (2016) Evaluation of HE4, CA-125, risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) in the preoperative assessment of patients with adnexal mass. Oman Med J 31:336–344

Sharan RN (2009) 15 poly-ADP-ribosylation in cancer. In: Trygve Tollefsbol (ed) Cancer Epigenetics. CRC Press, Florida, pp 265–279

Chanu TM (2022) PhD thesis entitled Clinical correlation between cancer regression and selected genetic and epigenetic biomarkers in patients undergoing cancer therapy. NEHU, Shillong, India

Sharan RN, Devi BJ, Humtsoe JO, Saikia JR, Kma L (2005) Detection and quantification of poly-ADP-ribosylated cellular proteins of spleen and liver tissues of mice in vivo by slot and Western blot immunoprobing using polyclonal antibody against mouse ADP-ribose polymer. Mol Cell Biochem 278:213–221

Devi BJ, Schneeweiss FHA, Sharan RN (2005) Negative correlation between poly-ADP-ribosylation of spleen cell histone proteins and initial duration of dimethylnitrosamine exposure to mice in vivo measured by Western blot immunoprobe assay: a possible biomarker for cancer detection. Cancer, Detect Prev 29:66–71

Saikia JR, Schneeweiss FHA, Sharan RN (1998) Effects of chronic low-dose arecoline administration on the macromolecular components of bone marrow and spleen cells of mice. Cancer J 11:94–98

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kma L, Sharan RN (2014) Dimethylnitrosamine induced reduction in the level of poly- ADP ribosylation of histone proteins of blood lymphocytes – a sensitive and reliable biomarker for early detection of cancer. Asia Pac J Cancer Prev 15:6429–6436

Lakadong RO, Kataki AC, Sharan RN (2010) ADP-ribose polymer - a novel and general biomarker of human cancers of head & neck, breast, and cervix. Mol Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-9-286

Hoxhaj G, Manning BD (2020) The PI3K–AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer 20:74–88

Degan SE, Gelman IH (2021) Emerging roles for AKT isoform preference in cancer progression pathways. Mol Cancer Res 19:1251–1257

Turner KM, Sun Y, Ji P, Granberg KJ, Bernard BL, Cogdell DE, Zhou X, Yli-Harja O, Nykter M, Shmulevich I (2015) Genomically amplified Akt3 activates DNA repair pathway and promotes glioma progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:3421–3426

Gallyas F, Sumegi B, Szabo C (2020) Role of Akt activation in PARP inhibitor resistance in cancer. Cancers 12:532–540

Guo K, Tang W, Zhuo H, Zhao G (2019) Recent advance of Akt inhibitors in clinical trials. ChemistrySelect 4:9040–9044

Santana dos Santos E, Lallemand F, Burke L, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Brown M, Caputo SM, Rouleau E (2018) Non-coding variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes: potential impact on breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10110453

Huang F, Goyal N, Sullivan K, Hanamshet K, Patel M, Mazina OM, Wang CX, An WF, Spoonamore J, Metkar S, Emmitte KA (2016) Targeting BRCA1-and BRCA2-deficient cells with RAD52 small molecule inhibitors. Nucleic Acid Res 44:4189–4199

Jin TY, Park KS, Nam SE, Yoo YB, Park WS, Yun IJ (2022) BRCA1/2 serves as a biomarker for poor prognosis in breast carcinoma. Intl J Mol Sci 23:3754–3768

Mazin AV, Zaitseva E, Sung P, Kowalczykowski SC (2000) Tailed duplex DNA is the preferred substrate for Rad51 protein-mediated homologous pairing. EMBO J 19:1148–1156

Dutto I, Scalera C, Prosperi E (2018) CREBBP and p300 lysine acetyl transferases in the DNA damage response. Cell Mol Life Sci 75:1325–1338

Karimian A, Ahmadi Y, Yousefi B (2016) Multiple functions of p21 in cell cycle, apoptosis and transcriptional regulation after DNA damage. DNA Repair 42:63–71

Bertoli C, Skotheim JM, De Bruin RA (2013) Control of cell cycle transcription during G1 and S phases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14:518–528

Abbas T, Dutta A (2009) p21 in cancer: intricate networks and multiple activities. Nat Rev Cancer 9:400–414

Moor NA, Lavrik OI (2018) Protein–protein interactions in DNA base excision repair. Biochemistry 83:411–422

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Weiss RH, Borowsky AD, Seligson D, Lin PY, Dillard-Telm L, Belldegrun AS, Figlin RA, Pantuck AD (2007) p21 is a prognostic marker for renal cell carcinoma: implications for novel therapeutic approaches. J Urol 177:63–69

Nongrum S, Vaiphei ST, Keppen J, Ksoo M, Kashyap E, Sharan RN (2017) Identification and preliminary validation of radiation response proteins(s) in human blood for a high throughput molecular biodosimetry technology for the future. Genome Integr. https://doi.org/10.4103/2041-9414.198910

Das JK, Xiong X, Ren X, Yang JM, Song J (2019) H eat shock proteins in cancer immunotherapy J. Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3267207

Ciocca DR, Calderwood SK (2005) Heat shock proteins in cancer: diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and treatment implications. Cell Stress Chaperones 10:86–103

Lianos GD, Alexiou GA, Mangano A, Rausei S, Boni L, Dionigi G, Roukos DH (2015) The role of heat shock proteins in cancer. Cancer Lett 360:114–118

Moon A, Bacchini P, Bertoni F, Olvi LG, Santini-Arawo E, Kim YW, Par YK (2010) Expression of heat shock proteins in osteosarcomas. Pathology 42:421–425

Selleck MJ, Senthil M, Wall NR (2017) Making meaningful clinical use of biomarkers. Biomark Insights. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177271917715236

Wang W, Xu X, Tian B, Wang Y, Du L, Sun T, Shi Y, Zhao X, Jing J (2017) The diagnostic value of serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, CA125, CA15-3, and TPS in metastatic breast cancer. Clin Chim Acta 470:51–55

Schüler-Toprak S, Treeck O, Ortmann O (2017) Human chorionic gonadotropin and breast cancer. Int J Mol Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18071587

Tian T, Li X, Zhang J (2019) mTOR signaling in cancer and mTOR inhibitors in solid tumor targeting therapy. Int J Mol Sci 20:755–764

Conciatori F, Ciuffreda L, Bazzichetto C, Falcone I, Pilotto S, Bria E, Cognetti F, Milella M (2018) mTOR cross-talk in cancer and potential for combination therapy. Cancers 10:23–34

Zou Z, Tao T, Li H, Zhu X (2020) mTOR signaling pathway and mTOR inhibitors in cancer: Progress and challenges. Cell Biosci 10:1–10

Lee HK, Lee DS, Park JC (2015) Nuclear factor IC regulates E-cadherin via control of KLF4 in breast cancer. BMC Cancer 15:1–11

Grabowska MM, Elliott AD, DeGraff DJ, Anderson PD, Anumanthan G, Yamashita H, Sun Q, Friedman DB, Hachey DL, Yu X, Sheehan JH (2014) NFI transcription factors interact with FOXA1 to regulate prostate-specific gene expression. Mol Endocrinol 28:949–964

Fane M, Harris L, Smith AG, Piper M (2017) Nuclear factor one transcription factors as epigenetic regulators in cancer. Int J Cancer 140:2634–2641

Yang C, Chng KR (2012) Abstract C2: Nuclear factor I/C collaborates with androgen receptor in transcription regulation in prostate cancer. Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.PRCA2012-C2

Zenker M, Bunt J, Schanze I, Schanze D, Piper M, Priolo M, Gerkes EH, Gronostajski RM, Richards LJ, Vogt J, Wessels MW (2019) Variants in nuclear factor I genes influence growth and development. Am J Med Gen 181:611–626

Carmeliet P (2005) VEGF as a key mediator of angiogenesis in cancer. Oncology 69:4–10

Hegde PS, Wallin JJ, Mancao C (2018) Predictive markers of anti-VEGF and emerging role of angiogenesis inhibitors as immunotherapeutics. Semin Cancer Biol 52:117–124

Kulapaditharom B, Boonkitticharoen V, Sritara C (2012) Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor dysregulation in defining aggressiveness of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Oncol 15:12–20

Garcia J, Hurwitz HI, Sandler AB, Miles D, Coleman RL, Deurloo R, Chinot OL (2020) Bevacizumab (Avastin®) in cancer treatment: a review of 15 years of clinical experience and future outlook. Cancer Treat Rev 86:102–117

Download references

This research was financially supported by grants from (a) International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna under research contract # 22218 to RNS and (b) DRS-III scheme of the UGC to the Department of Biochemistry. TMC gratefully acknowledges junior and senior research fellowship grants to support her doctoral study under the “Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (INSPIRE)” Fellowship scheme of the Government of India.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Radiation & Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Biochemistry, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, India

Tongbram Malemnganbi Chanu & R. N. Sharan

Cancer & Radiation Countermeasures Unit, Depatment of Biochemistry, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. N. Sharan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chanu, T.M., Kma, L. & Sharan, R.N. Cancer Biomarkers: Status and Its Future Direction. Indian J Surg 85 , 1323–1335 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-03723-1

Download citation

Received : 19 January 2023

Accepted : 13 February 2023

Published : 20 February 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-03723-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cancer biomarker
• Personalized cancer therapy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research