Jie-Fu Chen1, Hao Ho2,3, Jake Lichterman1, Yi-Tsung Lu1, Yang Zhang4, Mitch A Garcia4, Shang-Fu Chen4, An-Jou Liang4, Elisabeth Hodara1, Haiyen E Zhau1, Shuang Hou4, Rafi S Ahmed1, Daniel J Luthringer5, Jiaoti Huang6, Ker-Chau Li2,3, Leland W K Chung1, Zunfu Ke7, Hsian-Rong Tseng3, Edwin M Posadas1. 1. Urologic Oncology Program and Uro-Oncology Research Laboratories, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Statistics, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Institute of Statistical Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although enumeration of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has shown some clinical value, the pool of CTCs contains a mixture of cells that contains additional information that can be extracted. The authors subclassified CTCs by shape features focusing on nuclear size and related this with clinical information. METHODS: A total of 148 blood samples were obtained from 57 patients with prostate cancer across the spectrum of metastatic states: no metastasis, nonvisceral metastasis, and visceral metastasis. CTCs captured and enumerated on NanoVelcro Chips (CytoLumina, Los Angeles, Calif) were subjected to pathologic review including nuclear size. The distribution of nuclear size was analyzed using a Gaussian mixture model. Correlations were made between CTC subpopulations and metastatic status. RESULTS: Statistical modeling of nuclear size distribution revealed 3 distinct subpopulations: large nuclear CTCs, small nuclear CTCs, and very small nuclear CTCs (vsnCTCs). Small nuclear CTCs and vsnCTC identified those patients with metastatic disease. However, vsnCTC counts alone were found to be elevated in patients with visceral metastases when compared with those without (0.36 ± 0.69 vs 1.95 ± 3.77 cells/mL blood; P<.001). Serial enumeration studies suggested the emergence of vsnCTCs occurred before the detection of visceral metastases. CONCLUSIONS: There are morphologic subsets of CTCs that can be identified by fundamental pathologic approaches, such as nuclear size measurement. The results of this observational study strongly suggest that CTCs contain relevant information regarding disease status. In particular, the detection of vsnCTCs was found to be correlated with the presence of visceral metastases and should be formally explored as a putative blood-borne biomarker to identify patients at risk of developing this clinical evolution of prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: Although enumeration of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has shown some clinical value, the pool of CTCs contains a mixture of cells that contains additional information that can be extracted. The authors subclassified CTCs by shape features focusing on nuclear size and related this with clinical information. METHODS: A total of 148 blood samples were obtained from 57 patients with prostate cancer across the spectrum of metastatic states: no metastasis, nonvisceral metastasis, and visceral metastasis. CTCs captured and enumerated on NanoVelcro Chips (CytoLumina, Los Angeles, Calif) were subjected to pathologic review including nuclear size. The distribution of nuclear size was analyzed using a Gaussian mixture model. Correlations were made between CTC subpopulations and metastatic status. RESULTS: Statistical modeling of nuclear size distribution revealed 3 distinct subpopulations: large nuclear CTCs, small nuclear CTCs, and very small nuclear CTCs (vsnCTCs). Small nuclear CTCs and vsnCTC identified those patients with metastatic disease. However, vsnCTC counts alone were found to be elevated in patients with visceral metastases when compared with those without (0.36 ± 0.69 vs 1.95 ± 3.77 cells/mL blood; P<.001). Serial enumeration studies suggested the emergence of vsnCTCs occurred before the detection of visceral metastases. CONCLUSIONS: There are morphologic subsets of CTCs that can be identified by fundamental pathologic approaches, such as nuclear size measurement. The results of this observational study strongly suggest that CTCs contain relevant information regarding disease status. In particular, the detection of vsnCTCs was found to be correlated with the presence of visceral metastases and should be formally explored as a putative blood-borne biomarker to identify patients at risk of developing this clinical evolution of prostate cancer.
Authors: Luis Resel Folkersma; Luis San José Manso; Isabel Galante Romo; Jesüs Moreno Sierra; Carlos Olivier Gómez Journal: Urology Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Alison H M Reid; Gerhardt Attard; Daniel C Danila; Nikhil Babu Oommen; David Olmos; Peter C Fong; L Rhoda Molife; Joanne Hunt; Christina Messiou; Christopher Parker; David Dearnaley; Joost F Swennenhuis; Leon W M M Terstappen; Gloria Lee; Thian Kheoh; Arturo Molina; Charles J Ryan; Eric Small; Howard I Scher; Johann S de Bono Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jens G Lohr; Viktor A Adalsteinsson; Kristian Cibulskis; Atish D Choudhury; Mara Rosenberg; Peter Cruz-Gordillo; Joshua M Francis; Cheng-Zhong Zhang; Alex K Shalek; Rahul Satija; John J Trombetta; Diana Lu; Naren Tallapragada; Narmin Tahirova; Sora Kim; Brendan Blumenstiel; Carrie Sougnez; Alarice Lowe; Bang Wong; Daniel Auclair; Eliezer M Van Allen; Mari Nakabayashi; Rosina T Lis; Gwo-Shu M Lee; Tiantian Li; Matthew S Chabot; Amy Ly; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Thomas E Clancy; Massimo Loda; Aviv Regev; Matthew Meyerson; William C Hahn; Philip W Kantoff; Todd R Golub; Gad Getz; Jesse S Boehm; J Christopher Love Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2014-04-20 Impact factor: 54.908
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: Colin M Court; Shuang Hou; Paul Winograd; Nicholas H Segel; Qingyu Wilda Li; Yazhen Zhu; Saeed Sadeghi; Richard S Finn; Ekambaram Ganapathy; Min Song; Samuel W French; Bita V Naini; Shonan Sho; Fady M Kaldas; Ronald W Busuttil; James S Tomlinson; Hsian-Rong Tseng; Vatche G Agopian Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Christopher M Hartshorn; Michelle S Bradbury; Gregory M Lanza; Andre E Nel; Jianghong Rao; Andrew Z Wang; Ulrich B Wiesner; Lily Yang; Piotr Grodzinski Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Andrew S McDaniel; Roberta Ferraldeschi; Rachel Krupa; Mark Landers; Ryon Graf; Jessica Louw; Adam Jendrisak; Natalee Bales; Dena Marrinucci; Zafeiris Zafeiriou; Penelope Flohr; Spyridon Sideris; Mateus Crespo; Ines Figueiredo; Joaquin Mateo; Johann S de Bono; Ryan Dittamore; Scott A Tomlins; Gerhardt Attard Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 5.588