PURPOSE: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts might display a superior prognostic value for overall survival (OS) compared to objective response criteria (OR) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. METHODS: CTCs were detected using the CellSearch™ System out of 122 samples during docetaxel chemotherapy (75 mg/m(2)) at baseline (q0) and after 1 (q1), 4 (q4) and 10 (q10) cycles, in mCRPC patients (n = 33). OR was evaluated by morphologic RECIST and clinical criteria after 4 (q4) and 10 (q10) cycles. RESULTS: For OS, analyses revealed a significant prognostic value for categorical (<5 vs. ≥5) CTC counts (q0, p = 0.005; q1, p = 0.001; q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.002), RECIST (q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.02) and clinical criteria (q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.02). Concordance of CTC counts with OR revealed a sensitivity of 83.3-87.5 % and a specificity of 68.0-76.5 % with complementary discriminatory power for OS. Comparing CTC counts with concomitant OR at q4 in multivariate analyses, an independent prognostic value for OS was found for CTC counts (HR 3.3; p = 0.02) similar to clinical (HR 4.9; p = 0.02) and radiologic response (HR 3.4; p = 0.051). Comparing the predictive value for death, early post-treatment CTC counts at q1 demonstrated significant accuracy with an area under the curve of 79.5 % (p = 0.004) similar to CTC counts at q4 (76.7 %; p = 0.009). Radiologic and clinical response at q4 displayed accuracy similar to early CTC counts at q1 (72.2 %; p = 0.03 and 75.0 %; p = 0.02) despite low sensitivities. CONCLUSIONS: CTC counts appear to be an earlier and more sensitive predictor for survival and treatment response than current OR approaches and may provide complementary information toward individualized treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts might display a superior prognostic value for overall survival (OS) compared to objective response criteria (OR) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. METHODS: CTCs were detected using the CellSearch™ System out of 122 samples during docetaxel chemotherapy (75 mg/m(2)) at baseline (q0) and after 1 (q1), 4 (q4) and 10 (q10) cycles, in mCRPC patients (n = 33). OR was evaluated by morphologic RECIST and clinical criteria after 4 (q4) and 10 (q10) cycles. RESULTS: For OS, analyses revealed a significant prognostic value for categorical (<5 vs. ≥5) CTC counts (q0, p = 0.005; q1, p = 0.001; q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.002), RECIST (q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.02) and clinical criteria (q4, p < 0.001; q10, p = 0.02). Concordance of CTC counts with OR revealed a sensitivity of 83.3-87.5 % and a specificity of 68.0-76.5 % with complementary discriminatory power for OS. Comparing CTC counts with concomitant OR at q4 in multivariate analyses, an independent prognostic value for OS was found for CTC counts (HR 3.3; p = 0.02) similar to clinical (HR 4.9; p = 0.02) and radiologic response (HR 3.4; p = 0.051). Comparing the predictive value for death, early post-treatment CTC counts at q1 demonstrated significant accuracy with an area under the curve of 79.5 % (p = 0.004) similar to CTC counts at q4 (76.7 %; p = 0.009). Radiologic and clinical response at q4 displayed accuracy similar to early CTC counts at q1 (72.2 %; p = 0.03 and 75.0 %; p = 0.02) despite low sensitivities. CONCLUSIONS: CTC counts appear to be an earlier and more sensitive predictor for survival and treatment response than current OR approaches and may provide complementary information toward individualized treatment strategies.
Authors: Therese M Becker; Nicole J Caixeiro; Stephanie H Lim; Annette Tognela; Norbert Kienzle; Kieran F Scott; Kevin J Spring; Paul de Souza Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M H Strijbos; J W Gratama; P I M Schmitz; C Rao; W Onstenk; G V Doyle; M C Miller; R de Wit; L W M M Terstappen; S Sleijfer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Joseph D Khoury; Dorothy M Adcock; Fanny Chan; James T Symanowski; Stefan Tiefenbacher; Oscar Goodman; Lazara Paz; Yupo Ma; David C Ward; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Louis M Fink Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.493
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: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Howard I Scher; Susan Halabi; Ian Tannock; Michael Morris; Cora N Sternberg; Michael A Carducci; Mario A Eisenberger; Celestia Higano; Glenn J Bubley; Robert Dreicer; Daniel Petrylak; Philip Kantoff; Ethan Basch; William Kevin Kelly; William D Figg; Eric J Small; Tomasz M Beer; George Wilding; Alison Martin; Maha Hussain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Sarah M Schwarzenböck; Matthias Eiber; Günther Kundt; Margitta Retz; Monique Sakretz; Jens Kurth; Uwe Treiber; Roman Nawroth; Ernst J Rummeny; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Mark Thalgott; Bernd J Krause Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Caroline Vilhav; Cecilia Engström; Peter Naredi; Ann Novotny; Johan Bourghardt-Fagman; Britt-Marie Iresjö; Annika G Asting; Kent Lundholm Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.967