Michael L Pearl1, Qiang Zhao2, Jie Yang3, Huan Dong2, Shaun Tulley2, Qiao Zhang3, Marc Golightly4, Stanley Zucker5, Wen-Tien Chen6. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; Vitatex Inc., 25 Health Sciences Drive, Stony Brook, NY 11790, USA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; Department of Medicine and Research, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northport, NY 11768, USA. 6. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA; Vitatex Inc., 25 Health Sciences Drive, Stony Brook, NY 11790, USA. Electronic address: wentien@vitatex.com.
Abstract
GOALS: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been introduced as a biomarker in detecting advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The goals are to examine the prevalence of the invasive subpopulation of CTCs (iCTCs) in patients at high risk of EOC and to compare this biomarker to serum CA125. METHODS: We used a unique cell adhesion matrix (CAM)-based, functional cell enrichment and identification platform to isolate iCTCs from 129 preoperative patients. We confirmed the identity of iCTCs using positive epithelial (Epi+) markers and negative hematopoietic lineage (HL-) markers. Sensitivity and specificity of the assays were examined and iCTCs/CA125 were correlated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical parameters. RESULTS: We found a 41.2% sensitivity, 95.1% specificity and 77.8% positive predictive value (PPV) of the iCTC assay in detecting patients with stage I and II EOC malignancy, and a 83% sensitivity and 97.3% PPV in detecting all stages of EOC malignancy. However, a positive CA125 test provided weak evidence to detect stage I and II malignancy (61.6% PPV) and all EOC (92.1% PPV), because of its 76.2% specificity. A significantly stronger concordance in OS and PFS of clinical factors (tumor stage, debulking and platinum sensitivity) was noted for elevated iCTCs than for serum CA125. CONCLUSION: The CAM-initiated CTC enrichment/identification method enabled the detection of early stage EOC. iCTCs were better correlated with worse OS and PFS, more specific and better PPV than CA125 in detecting EOC malignancy in patients at high risk of EOC.
GOALS: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been introduced as a biomarker in detecting advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The goals are to examine the prevalence of the invasive subpopulation of CTCs (iCTCs) in patients at high risk of EOC and to compare this biomarker to serum CA125. METHODS: We used a unique cell adhesion matrix (CAM)-based, functional cell enrichment and identification platform to isolate iCTCs from 129 preoperative patients. We confirmed the identity of iCTCs using positive epithelial (Epi+) markers and negative hematopoietic lineage (HL-) markers. Sensitivity and specificity of the assays were examined and iCTCs/CA125 were correlated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical parameters. RESULTS: We found a 41.2% sensitivity, 95.1% specificity and 77.8% positive predictive value (PPV) of the iCTC assay in detecting patients with stage I and II EOC malignancy, and a 83% sensitivity and 97.3% PPV in detecting all stages of EOC malignancy. However, a positive CA125 test provided weak evidence to detect stage I and II malignancy (61.6% PPV) and all EOC (92.1% PPV), because of its 76.2% specificity. A significantly stronger concordance in OS and PFS of clinical factors (tumor stage, debulking and platinum sensitivity) was noted for elevated iCTCs than for serum CA125. CONCLUSION: The CAM-initiated CTC enrichment/identification method enabled the detection of early stage EOC. iCTCs were better correlated with worse OS and PFS, more specific and better PPV than CA125 in detecting EOC malignancy in patients at high risk of EOC.
Authors: Janice Lu; Tina Fan; Qiang Zhao; Wei Zeng; Eva Zaslavsky; John J Chen; Michael A Frohman; Marc G Golightly; Stefan Madajewicz; Wen-Tien Chen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Andres Poveda; Stanley B Kaye; Robert McCormack; Songbai Wang; Trilok Parekh; Deborah Ricci; Claudia A Lebedinsky; Juan Carlos Tercero; Patrik Zintl; Bradley J Monk Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Shannon L Stott; Richard J Lee; Sunitha Nagrath; Min Yu; David T Miyamoto; Lindsey Ulkus; Elizabeth J Inserra; Matthew Ulman; Simeon Springer; Zev Nakamura; Alessandra L Moore; Dina I Tsukrov; Maria E Kempner; Douglas M Dahl; Chin-Lee Wu; A John Iafrate; Matthew R Smith; Ronald G Tompkins; Lecia V Sequist; Mehmet Toner; Daniel A Haber; Shyamala Maheswaran Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Oliver Zivanovic; Camelia S Sima; Alexia Iasonos; Katherine M Bell-McGuinn; Paul J Sabbatini; Mario M Leitao; Douglas A Levine; Ginger J Gardner; Richard R Barakat; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anne M van Altena; Eva Kolwijck; Marielle J B Spanjer; Jan C M Hendriks; Leon F A G Massuger; Joanne A de Hullu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Cesar M Castro; Hyungsoon Im; Christine Le; Hakho Lee; Ralph Weissleder; Michael J Birrer Journal: Cancer Metastasis Rev Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 9.264
Authors: Richard G Moore; Alexandra Blackman; M Craig Miller; Katina Robison; Paul A DiSilvestro; Elizabeth E Eklund; Robert Strongin; Geralyn Messerlian Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-04-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emil Lou; Rachel I Vogel; Deanna Teoh; Spencer Hoostal; Aaron Grad; Matthew Gerber; Minnu Monu; Tomasz Lukaszewski; Jaai Deshpande; Michael A Linden; Melissa A Geller Journal: Lab Med Date: 2018-03-21