Q Lv1, L Gong2, T Zhang1, J Ye1, L Chai3, C Ni4, Y Mao5. 1. Cancer Institute (Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Intervention, National Ministry of Education, Provincial Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Medical Sciences), The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, China. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Affiliated Cixi Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Cixi, 315300, China. 3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, First Affiliated Hospital, Medical School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, China. 4. Department of Breast Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, 310004, China. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, First Affiliated Hospital, Medical School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310003, China. davenc@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains the main cause of cancer-related death, and the clinical significance and prognostic role of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic breast cancer are still controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the correlation between CTCs and the clinicopathological features and prognosis of MBC. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed and the ISI Web of Science through December 2014. Only articles that focused on MBC patients and detected CTCs using the CellSearch system were included. The associations between CTCs and survival rate and clinicopathological parameters, including molecular pattern, metastatic region and treatment response, were evaluated. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 24 studies (3701 MBC patients), 13 prospective studies and 11 retrospective studies. We found that CTCs were more frequently detected with HER2 + primary tumors (pooled RR = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.63-0.84). Additionally, higher CTC numbers indicated a worse treatment response (RR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.40-0.79), poorer PFS (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI = 0.56-0.73) and poorer OS (RR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.64-0.75) in MBC patients. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, we propose that HER2 positivity could be a significant risk factor for the presence of CTCs. Additionally, CTCs have a significant prognostic value for MBC patients. Therefore, CTCs should be continually monitored to guide the treatment of MBC patients, especially those with HER2 + primary tumors.
OBJECTIVE:Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains the main cause of cancer-related death, and the clinical significance and prognostic role of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in metastatic breast cancer are still controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the correlation between CTCs and the clinicopathological features and prognosis of MBC. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of Pubmed and the ISI Web of Science through December 2014. Only articles that focused on MBCpatients and detected CTCs using the CellSearch system were included. The associations between CTCs and survival rate and clinicopathological parameters, including molecular pattern, metastatic region and treatment response, were evaluated. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 24 studies (3701 MBCpatients), 13 prospective studies and 11 retrospective studies. We found that CTCs were more frequently detected with HER2 + primary tumors (pooled RR = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.63-0.84). Additionally, higher CTC numbers indicated a worse treatment response (RR = 0.56, 95 % CI = 0.40-0.79), poorer PFS (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI = 0.56-0.73) and poorer OS (RR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.64-0.75) in MBCpatients. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, we propose that HER2 positivity could be a significant risk factor for the presence of CTCs. Additionally, CTCs have a significant prognostic value for MBCpatients. Therefore, CTCs should be continually monitored to guide the treatment of MBCpatients, especially those with HER2 + primary tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Circulating tumor cells; Her2; Meta-analysis; Prognosis
Authors: Markus Wallwiener; Andreas Daniel Hartkopf; Irène Baccelli; Sabine Riethdorf; Sarah Schott; Klaus Pantel; Frederik Marmé; Christof Sohn; Andreas Trumpp; Brigitte Rack; Bahriye Aktas; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Volkmar Müller; Wolfgang Janni; Andreas Schneeweiss; Tanja Natascha Fehm Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-12-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Daniel F Hayes; Massimo Cristofanilli; G Thomas Budd; Matthew J Ellis; Alison Stopeck; M Craig Miller; Jeri Matera; W Jeffrey Allard; Gerald V Doyle; Leon W W M Terstappen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-07-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: F-C Bidard; A Vincent-Salomon; B Sigal-Zafrani; V Diéras; C Mathiot; L Mignot; J-P Thiery; X Sastre-Garau; J-Y Pierga Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Mego; U De Giorgi; L Hsu; N T Ueno; V Valero; S Jackson; E Andreopoulou; S-W Kau; J M Reuben; M Cristofanilli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jeffrey B Smerage; William E Barlow; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Eric P Winer; Brian Leyland-Jones; Gordan Srkalovic; Sheela Tejwani; Anne F Schott; Mark A O'Rourke; Danika L Lew; Gerald V Doyle; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: L Yang; Z Lv; W Xia; W Zhang; Y Xin; H Yuan; Y Chen; X Hu; Y Lv; Q Xu; X Weng; C Ni Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mark T J van Bussel; Dick Pluim; Mijke Bol; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Dieta Brandsma Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Michal Mego; Marian Karaba; Tatiana Sedlackova; Juraj Benca; Gabriela Repiska; Lucia Krasnicanova; Jan Macuch; Gabriela Sieberova; Silvia Jurisova; Daniel Pindak; Katarina Kalavska; Jozef Mardiak; Gabriel Minarik Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: M E Menezes; S K Das; I Minn; L Emdad; X-Y Wang; D Sarkar; M G Pomper; P B Fisher Journal: Adv Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 6.242