PURPOSE: To explore circulating tumor cell (CTCs) counts in different stages of prostate cancer (PC) in association with tumor burden, metastatic pattern and conventional serum biomarkers. Overall survival (OS) analyses were conducted with respect to optimized CTC cutoff levels. METHODS: Circulating tumor cell counts were assessed in healthy controls (n = 15) as well as in locally advanced high risk (LAPC, n = 20), metastatic castration resistant (mCRPC, n = 40) and taxane-refractory (mTRPC, n = 15) PC patients. CTCs were detected using the CellSearch System. RESULTS: In metastatic PC (mPC), CTC counts were significantly increased compared to LAPC (p < 0.001). In LAPC, CTCs were at control level (p = 0.66). Patients with both bone and visceral lesions revealed the highest median CTC count (p = 0.004), whereas patients with sole soft tissue metastases displayed CTC counts comparable to controls (p = 0.16). No correlation was observed between CTC counts and osseous tumor burden assessed by bone lesion count (p = 0.54) or bone scan index (p = 0.81). CTC counts revealed a positive correlation with alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.001) and lactate dehydrogenase (p < 0.001) as well as a negative association with hemoglobin (p = 0.004) and PSA-doubling time (p = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated a cohort adjusted cutoff level of 3 CTCs with a shorter OS in case of ≥3 CTCs compared to <3 CTCs (p = 0.001), a cutoff level applicable in mCRPC (p = 0.003) but not in mTRPC patients (p = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Circulating tumor cell counts are applicable as a prognostic molecular marker, especially in mCRPC patients harboring bone metastases with or without visceral metastases. For clinical practice, mPC patients with elevated CTC counts in combination with short PSA-DT, high alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase levels as well as low hemoglobin levels are at high risk of disease progression and limited OS.
PURPOSE: To explore circulating tumor cell (CTCs) counts in different stages of prostate cancer (PC) in association with tumor burden, metastatic pattern and conventional serum biomarkers. Overall survival (OS) analyses were conducted with respect to optimized CTC cutoff levels. METHODS: Circulating tumor cell counts were assessed in healthy controls (n = 15) as well as in locally advanced high risk (LAPC, n = 20), metastatic castration resistant (mCRPC, n = 40) and taxane-refractory (mTRPC, n = 15) PC patients. CTCs were detected using the CellSearch System. RESULTS: In metastatic PC (mPC), CTC counts were significantly increased compared to LAPC (p < 0.001). In LAPC, CTCs were at control level (p = 0.66). Patients with both bone and visceral lesions revealed the highest median CTC count (p = 0.004), whereas patients with sole soft tissue metastases displayed CTC counts comparable to controls (p = 0.16). No correlation was observed between CTC counts and osseous tumor burden assessed by bone lesion count (p = 0.54) or bone scan index (p = 0.81). CTC counts revealed a positive correlation with alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.001) and lactate dehydrogenase (p < 0.001) as well as a negative association with hemoglobin (p = 0.004) and PSA-doubling time (p = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated a cohort adjusted cutoff level of 3 CTCs with a shorter OS in case of ≥3 CTCs compared to <3 CTCs (p = 0.001), a cutoff level applicable in mCRPC (p = 0.003) but not in mTRPC patients (p = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Circulating tumor cell counts are applicable as a prognostic molecular marker, especially in mCRPC patients harboring bone metastases with or without visceral metastases. For clinical practice, mPC patients with elevated CTC counts in combination with short PSA-DT, high alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase levels as well as low hemoglobin levels are at high risk of disease progression and limited OS.
Authors: Michael Rink; Felix K Chun; Roland Dahlem; Armin Soave; Sarah Minner; Jens Hansen; Malgorzata Stoupiec; Cornelia Coith; Luis A Kluth; Sascha A Ahyai; Martin G Friedrich; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Klaus Pantel; Sabine Riethdorf Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jose G Moreno; M Craig Miller; Steve Gross; W Jeffrey Allard; Leonard G Gomella; Leon W M M Terstappen Journal: Urology Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: David R Shaffer; Margaret A Leversha; Daniel C Danila; Oscar Lin; Rita Gonzalez-Espinoza; Bin Gu; Aseem Anand; Katherine Smith; Peter Maslak; Gerald V Doyle; Leon W M M Terstappen; Hans Lilja; Glenn Heller; Martin Fleisher; Howard I Scher Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Howard I Scher; Xiaoyu Jia; Johann S de Bono; Martin Fleisher; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan; Glenn Heller Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: John W Davis; Hiroyuki Nakanishi; Vikas S Kumar; Viju A Bhadkamkar; Robert McCormack; Herbert A Fritsche; Beverly Handy; Terrie Gornet; R Joseph Babaian Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Johann S de Bono; Howard I Scher; R Bruce Montgomery; Christopher Parker; M Craig Miller; Henk Tissing; Gerald V Doyle; Leon W W M Terstappen; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tiffany A Wallace; Ronan F Downey; Caleb J Seufert; Aaron Schetter; Tiffany H Dorsey; Carol A Johnson; Radoslav Goldman; Christopher A Loffredo; Peisha Yan; Francis J Sullivan; Francis J Giles; Feng Wang-Johanning; Stefan Ambs; Sharon A Glynn Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: M Thalgott; M M Heck; M Eiber; M Souvatzoglou; G Hatzichristodoulou; V Kehl; B J Krause; B Rack; M Retz; J E Gschwend; U Andergassen; R Nawroth Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Giuseppe Galletti; Luigi Portella; Scott T Tagawa; Brian J Kirby; Paraskevi Giannakakou; David M Nanus Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.074