Christy E Cauley1, Martha B Pitman2, Jiahua Zhou3, James Perkins3, Birte Kuleman3, Andrew S Liss3, Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo3, Andrew L Warshaw3, Keith D Lillemoe3, Sarah P Thayer4. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Warshaw Institute for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: ccauley@partners.org. 2. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Warshaw Institute for Pancreatic Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating epithelial cell (CEC) isolation has provided diagnostic and prognostic information for a variety of cancers, previously supporting their identity as circulating tumor cells in the literature. However, we report CEC findings in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant pancreatic lesions using a size-selective filtration device. STUDY DESIGN: Peripheral blood samples were drawn from patients found to have pancreatic lesions on preoperative imaging at a surgical clinic. Blood was filtered using ScreenCell devices, which were evaluated microscopically by a pancreatic cytopathologist. Pathologic data and clinical outcomes of these patients were obtained from medical records during a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Nine healthy volunteers formed the control group and were found to be negative for CECs. There were 179 patients with pancreatic lesions that formed the study cohort. Circulating epithelial cells were morphologically similar in patients with a variety of pancreatic lesions. Specifically, CECs were identified in 51 of 105 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (49%), 7 of 11 neuroendocrine tumors (64%), 13 of 21 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (62%), and 6 of 13 patients with chronic pancreatitis. Rates of CEC identification were similar in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions (p = 0.41). In addition, CEC findings in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients were not associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although CECs were not identified in healthy volunteers, they were identified in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant pancreatic lesions. The presence of CECs in patients presenting with pancreatic lesions is neither diagnostic of malignancy nor prognostic for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
BACKGROUND: Circulating epithelial cell (CEC) isolation has provided diagnostic and prognostic information for a variety of cancers, previously supporting their identity as circulating tumor cells in the literature. However, we report CEC findings in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant pancreatic lesions using a size-selective filtration device. STUDY DESIGN: Peripheral blood samples were drawn from patients found to have pancreatic lesions on preoperative imaging at a surgical clinic. Blood was filtered using ScreenCell devices, which were evaluated microscopically by a pancreatic cytopathologist. Pathologic data and clinical outcomes of these patients were obtained from medical records during a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Nine healthy volunteers formed the control group and were found to be negative for CECs. There were 179 patients with pancreatic lesions that formed the study cohort. Circulating epithelial cells were morphologically similar in patients with a variety of pancreatic lesions. Specifically, CECs were identified in 51 of 105 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (49%), 7 of 11 neuroendocrine tumors (64%), 13 of 21 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (62%), and 6 of 13 patients with chronic pancreatitis. Rates of CEC identification were similar in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions (p = 0.41). In addition, CEC findings in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomapatients were not associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although CECs were not identified in healthy volunteers, they were identified in patients with benign, premalignant, and malignant pancreatic lesions. The presence of CECs in patients presenting with pancreatic lesions is neither diagnostic of malignancy nor prognostic for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Authors: Véronique Hofman; Christelle Bonnetaud; Marius I Ilie; Philippe Vielh; Jean Michel Vignaud; Jean François Fléjou; Sylvie Lantuejoul; Eric Piaton; Nadine Mourad; Catherine Butori; Eric Selva; Michel Poudenx; Stéphanie Sibon; Sabrina Kelhef; Nicolas Vénissac; Jean-Philippe Jais; Jérôme Mouroux; Thierry Jo Molina; Paul Hofman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Maximilian Aigner; Kristian Thorlund; Nathan Mollberg; Edith Motschall; Katrin Jensen; Markus K Diener; Markus W Büchler; Moritz Koch; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Carlos Fernández-del Castillo; Javier Targarona; Sarah P Thayer; David W Rattner; William R Brugge; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2003-04
Authors: M Shirin Sabbaghian; Gary Rothberger; Alexandra P Alongi; Jean-Pierre Gagner; Judith D Goldberg; Linda Rolnitzky; Luis Chiriboga; Cristina H Hajdu; David Zagzag; Ross Basch; Peter Shamamian Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Sunitha Nagrath; Lecia V Sequist; Shyamala Maheswaran; Daphne W Bell; Daniel Irimia; Lindsey Ulkus; Matthew R Smith; Eunice L Kwak; Subba Digumarthy; Alona Muzikansky; Paula Ryan; Ulysses J Balis; Ronald G Tompkins; Daniel A Haber; Mehmet Toner Journal: Nature Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Shyamala Maheswaran; Lecia V Sequist; Sunitha Nagrath; Lindsey Ulkus; Brian Brannigan; Chey V Collura; Elizabeth Inserra; Sven Diederichs; A John Iafrate; Daphne W Bell; Subba Digumarthy; Alona Muzikansky; Daniel Irimia; Jeffrey Settleman; Ronald G Tompkins; Thomas J Lynch; Mehmet Toner; Daniel A Haber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew W Rosenbaum; Christy E Cauley; Birte Kulemann; Andrew S Liss; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Sarah P Thayer; Martha B Pitman Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jussuf T Kaifi; Guangfu Li; Gary Clawson; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Manjima Dhar; Edward Pao; Corinne Renier; Derek E Go; James Che; Rosita Montoya; Rachel Conrad; Melissa Matsumoto; Kyra Heirich; Melanie Triboulet; Jianyu Rao; Stefanie S Jeffrey; Edward B Garon; Jonathan Goldman; Nagesh P Rao; Rajan Kulkarni; Elodie Sollier-Christen; Dino Di Carlo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 4.379