BACKGROUND: Immunomagnetic EpCAM based methods are used to enrich circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. EpCAM negative CTCs may be missed. We addressed the question of the reliability of an EpCAM dependent assay to enrich CTCs. METHODS: To elucidate this issue, our study has been designed to assess two different CTC enrichment technologies (i) in EpCAM positive (+) and EpCAM negative cell lines and (ii) in mBC patients in dependency on their respective EpCAM expression. These two technologies encompass one anti-EpCAM immunomagnetic enrichment technology, MACS HEA MicroBeads(®) (MACS), and one EpCAM independent density centrifugation method, OncoQuick(®) plus (OQ+). Furthermore, the coherence between EpCAM expression in the primary tumor tissue of mBC patients and the CTC detection rates in the corresponding patients is analyzed. RESULTS: (i) MACS recovered significantly more EpCAM (+) than EpCAM (-) tumor cells (p < 0.001) in spiked blood samples. With OQ+ no significantly different recovery rates between EpCAM (+) and EpCAM (-) tumor cells (p = 0.796) were detected. (ii) In mBC patients MACS yielded a significantly higher (p = 0.024) detection rate of EpCAM (+) CTCs. No statistically significant difference (p = 0.070) was found concerning the EpCAM status-based detection rate of CTCs by OQ+. (iii) CTC detection rates are independent of the primary tumors' EpCAM expression. CONCLUSIONS: EpCAM (-) CTCs can not be detected by immunomagnetic EpCAM dependent enrichment methods. EpCAM independent enrichment technologies seem to be superior to detect the entire CTC population. Evaluation of CTCs as prognostic marker should compromise EpCAM (+) and (-) subpopulations.
BACKGROUND: Immunomagnetic EpCAM based methods are used to enrich circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. EpCAM negative CTCs may be missed. We addressed the question of the reliability of an EpCAM dependent assay to enrich CTCs. METHODS: To elucidate this issue, our study has been designed to assess two different CTC enrichment technologies (i) in EpCAM positive (+) and EpCAM negative cell lines and (ii) in mBC patients in dependency on their respective EpCAM expression. These two technologies encompass one anti-EpCAM immunomagnetic enrichment technology, MACS HEA MicroBeads(®) (MACS), and one EpCAM independent density centrifugation method, OncoQuick(®) plus (OQ+). Furthermore, the coherence between EpCAM expression in the primary tumor tissue of mBC patients and the CTC detection rates in the corresponding patients is analyzed. RESULTS: (i) MACS recovered significantly more EpCAM (+) than EpCAM (-) tumor cells (p < 0.001) in spiked blood samples. With OQ+ no significantly different recovery rates between EpCAM (+) and EpCAM (-) tumor cells (p = 0.796) were detected. (ii) In mBC patientsMACS yielded a significantly higher (p = 0.024) detection rate of EpCAM (+) CTCs. No statistically significant difference (p = 0.070) was found concerning the EpCAM status-based detection rate of CTCs by OQ+. (iii) CTC detection rates are independent of the primary tumors' EpCAM expression. CONCLUSIONS:EpCAM (-) CTCs can not be detected by immunomagnetic EpCAM dependent enrichment methods. EpCAM independent enrichment technologies seem to be superior to detect the entire CTC population. Evaluation of CTCs as prognostic marker should compromise EpCAM (+) and (-) subpopulations.
Authors: Benjamin P Casavant; Rachel Mosher; Jay W Warrick; Lindsey J Maccoux; Scott M F Berry; Jordan T Becker; Vivian Chen; Joshua M Lang; Douglas G McNeel; David J Beebe Journal: Methods Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Katarina Kolostova; Michael Pinkas; Anna Jakabova; Eliska Pospisilova; Pavla Svobodova; Jan Spicka; Martin Cegan; Rafal Matkowski; Vladimir Bobek Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Tobias Piegeler; Thomas Winder; Sabine Kern; Bernhard Pestalozzi; Paul Magnus Schneider; Beatrice Beck-Schimmer Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 2.967