| Literature DB >> 25977918 |
Wan Shi Low1, Wan Abu Bakar Wan Abas1.
Abstract
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are tumor cells that have detached from primary tumor site and are transported via the circulation system. The importance of CTCs as prognostic biomarker is leveraged when multiple studies found that patient with cutoff of 5 CTCs per 7.5 mL blood has poor survival rate. Despite its clinical relevance, the isolation and characterization of CTCs can be quite challenging due to their large morphological variability and the rare presence of CTCs within the blood. Numerous methods have been employed and discussed in the literature for CTCs separation. In this paper, we will focus on label free CTCs isolation methods, in which the biophysical and biomechanical properties of cells (e.g., size, deformability, and electricity) are exploited for CTCs detection. To assess the present state of various isolation methods, key performance metrics such as capture efficiency, cell viability, and throughput will be reported. Finally, we discuss the challenges and future perspectives of CTC isolation technologies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25977918 PMCID: PMC4419234 DOI: 10.1155/2015/239362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Principle of density centrifugation separation method. Sample is layered on top of a density gradient, Ficoll. Under centrifugal force, particles move through the medium and density gradient and be suspended at a point in which the density of the particles equals the surrounding medium.
Figure 2Schematics of various microfiltration mechanisms: (a) membrane microfilter (reproduced with permission from [10], copyright 2014, The Royal Society of Chemistry). Its fluid flow configuration can be further categorized into two types, which is dead-end filtration and crossflow filtration. (b) 3D membrane microfilter with key geometrical parameters labelled. The smaller cells can easily traverse through the gap while the large cells (e.g., tumor cells) will be trapped. Two types of force are exerted in the trapped cell such that force is caused by hydrodynamic pressure from top and supporting force from bottom membrane (reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd.: Scientific Reports [11], copyright 2015). (c) 3D palladium membrane microfilter cassette and its SEM images of filter (reprinted with permission from [12], copyright 2014, PloS One). The cross-sectional view showing tumor cells will be trapped within the gap of the membranes [13]. (d) Membrane slot filter design. (e) Weir-type filter (adapted with permission from [14], copyright 2001, American Chemical Society). A silt-type structure is fabricated within the flow channel to improve the target cells retention. The smaller weir gap is designed to allow human RBC and plasma to pass through while retaining CTCs. (f) Cross-sectional view of diagonally weir-type filtration (reproduced with permission from [15], copyright 2012, John Wiley and Sons). (g) Bead-packed based filtration. The microchannel entrance is blocked by packing large sized beads. Different bead sizes were used to implement a blood/plasma separator at the inlet of the microchannel. Subsequently, when whole blood was dropped into the inlet of the microchannel, the structure was allowed for the capillary flow of blood through the hetero-packed beads. During this movement of blood, the RBC will pass through small pores while big sizes cells such as CTCs will be blocked from flowing into the channel (reproduced with permission from [16], copyright 2012, The Royal Society of Chemistry).
Figure 3Illustration of (a) an acoustophoresis device and (b) the particle gradient within the microchannel cross section after passing over the transducer (adapted with permission from [17], copyright 2007, American Chemical Society).
Figure 4Schematic of DEP cell isolation devices. (a) DEP microchip with 3D side wall microelectrode. By imposing an AC voltage on the side wall microelectrodes, cells will experience repulsive (nDEP) or attractive forces (pDEP), depending on their relative polarizability between cells and fluid (adapted with permission from [18], Copyright 2011, American Chemical Society). (b) DEP system with contactless microelectrode. This method is capable of manipulating cells without direct contact between electrodes and sample. The schematic of cDEP platform design is showed, such that the electrode is inserted into two conductive microchambers, and is separated from the microfluidic chamber by thin insulating barriers. Consequently, cell adherance to the microchip can be prevented. To accumulate the target cell onto the central microelectrode, a stepping electric field is generated such that the applied electric field is subsequently switched between the adjacent electrode pair via relays. Cell which experienced pDEP will be guided along the direction of stepping electric field toward the center of circular electrode (adapted with permission from [19], copyright 2012, Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering).
Figure 5Types of hydrodynamic cell sorting: (a) Pinched flow fractionation. In both microfluidic design by (i) and (ii) Takagi et al. [20], multiple branch channels with different channel dimensions were arranged at the end of the pinched segment, thus resulted flow rate distribution to each channel was different. Cell would then enter into their respectively outlet in accordance to their size (Reprinted with permission from [20]. Copyright 2005 The Royal Society of Chemistry.). As illustrated in (iii) [21], the smaller particle will closely follow the fluid streamline and move toward the upper portion of the exit area, while the larger particles move closer to the center. This is due to the smaller cells tends to move faster under hydrodynamic force which resulted them to press closer to the wall as the flow ratio increase (Reprinted with permission from [21]. Copyright 2013, John Wiley and Sons.). (b) Deterministic lateral displacement. The presence of array of microposts (which each row of posts is slightly offset laterally with respect to the previous row) will cause the cells below critical hydrodynamic diameters (such as WBC and RBC) to follow the streamlines cyclically through the gaps. Meanwhile, cell above critical hydrodynamic posts such as CTCs will be moved by lateral drag into sequential streamline at each post (reprinted with permission from [22], copyright 2013, AIP Publishing LLC). (c) Inertial separation. When the blood sample is pumped into the spiral channel, the centrifugal acceleration of fluid flow will result in the formation of two symmetrical counter-rotating vortices across the channel. The smaller cell such as RBC and WBC will move along the vortices toward the inner wall and back to the outer wall, while larger CTCs will focus along the inner wall due to the additional strong inertial lift forces (reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd.: Scientific Reports [23], copyright 2013). (d) Contraction expansion microfluidic device. Dean drag forces are induced at the entrance of contraction region and thus result in blood sample which flow through this region to have an influence by inertial lift force. RBC and WBC will move toward s 2 while cancer cells move toward s 1 (reprinted with permission from [24], copyright 2013, American Chemical Society).
Performance specification of physical based CTCs separation methods.
| Method | Target of cancer cell line | CTCs separation efficiency | Cell viability | Purity | Flow rate (whole blood/time) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centrifugation (Ficoll-Hypaque) | Human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) | ~46% | — | 90% | — | Lara et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Centrifugation (OncoQuick) | MCF-7, ZR-75-1, and Hs578T | MCF-7: 57.89% | — | — | — |
Königsberg et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Microfiltration (pore type) | Human breast cancer cells (MCF-7, MDA-MB-453, and SK-BR-3) and human prostate adenocarcinoma cancer cells (LNCAP, PC3) | 7 | — | — | ~10 mL/min (concentration: 104 cells/mL) | Adams et al. [ |
| Human prostate cancer PC-3 cells | >90% | >90% | — | — |
Lu et al. [ | |
|
| ||||||
| Microfiltration (3D membrane) | Human prostate adenocarcinoma cell line (LNCaP) and human breast adenocarcinoma cell line (MCF-7) | >86% | 85% | — | ~3.75 mL/min (concentration: 106 cells/mL) | Zheng et al. [ |
| Human gastric carcinoma cell line (NCI N-87) | >85% | — | — | 2.5 mL/min (concentration: 2.5 × 105 cells/mL) | Yusa et al. [ | |
| Breast cancer cell lines: MCF-7, MDA-MB-231 | 78%–83% | 71%–74% | — | — | Zhou et al. [ | |
|
| ||||||
| Microfiltration (weir-type) | Human A431 cancer cells | >95% | — | >98% | ~5 mL/hr (10 tumors cells/mL of whole blood) | Chung et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Microfiltration (pillar type) | MCF-7, SK-BR-3, J82, T24, RT4, and LNCaP | >90% | ≥93% | >90% | — | Lin et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Microfiltration (hetero-packed bead type) | Human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) | 21%–40% | — | 0.2 mL/hr (concentration: 106/mL) | Arya et al. [ | |
|
| ||||||
| Dielectrophoresis (planar configuration) | Human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) | (i) MCF-7: 75.18% | — | (i) MCF-7: 16.24% | ~250 | Moon et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Dielectrophoresis (contactless mode) | Human cervical carcinoma cell (HeLa cells) | 64.5% | — | — | — | Huang et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Acoustophoresis | Prostate cancer cell line: | |||||
| DU145, PC3, and LNCAP | PFA-fixed cell sample | No significant changes were observed for acoustophoresis treated and untreated samples | PFA-fixed cell sample | ~450 | Augustsson et al. [ | |
| DU145, PC3, LNCAP, and VCaP | — | The average cell dead is <1% for DU145 and PC3, while ≤3% for LNCAP and VCaP | — | ~100 | Burguillos et al. [ | |
|
| ||||||
| Hydrodynamic sorting (pinched flow fractionation) | MV3-melanoma cells | 100% | ~100% | (i) 0.4% hematocrit: 66.6% | 600 | Geislinger and Franke [ |
|
| ||||||
| Hydrodynamic sorting (deterministic lateral displacement) | Human breast cancer cell line: MDAMB231, MCF10A, and PC3 | ≥85% | ≥95% | — | 10 mL/min (concentration: | Loutherback et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Hydrodynamic sorting (inertial lift force) | MCF-7 | >85% | >98% | 50% | 3 mL/hr (concentration: 10–100 CTCs/mL of diluted whole blood samples) | Hou et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Hydrodynamic sorting (inertia force) | MCF-7, T24, and MDA-MB-231 | >80% | >80% | ~4 log depletion of WBCs | 2.0 mL/min (500 tumour cells per 7.5 mL of whole blood) | Warkiani et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
| Hydrodynamic sorting (inertia force) | MCF-7 cancer cells | 99.5% | — | — | 3 to 12 mL/h (processing 4.2 × 107 cells/min to 2 × 107 cells/min) | Lee et al. [ |
Figure 6Illustration of ApoStream device. The elution buffer is introduced at the upstream end of the flow chamber with a computer-controlled gear pump. The blood sample is injected with a high precision syringe pump at a low flow rate into the bottom of the flow chamber to reduce the cell levitation and to ensure that cells stay within effective DEP field. Under DEP field, the DEP forces will attract cancer cells toward the electrodes on the chamber floors and vice versa to others cells. Cancer cells will withdraw through the collection port which is located close to the chamber floor. Meanwhile, other blood cells will be levitated and flow into the waste container via a second outlet port (reprinted with the permission from [25], copyright 2012, AIP Publishing LLC).