Bojana Milojkovic Kerklaan1, Dick Pluim1, Mijke Bol1, Ingrid Hofland1, Johan Westerga1, Harm van Tinteren1, Jos H Beijnen1, Willem Boogerd1, Jan H M Schellens1, Dieta Brandsma1. 1. Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, the Netherlands (B.M.K., D.P., I.H., J.H.M.S.); Department of Clinical Pharmacology, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (B.M.K., J.H.M.S.); Department of Pathology, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (M.B.), Core Facility Molecular Pathology & Biobanking (CFMPB), Department of Molecular Pathology, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (I.H.); Department of Pathology, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.W.); Biometric Department, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (H.v.T.); Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.H.B.); Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands (J.H.B., J.H.M.S.); Department of Neuro-oncology, NKI-AVL, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (W.B., D.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Moderate diagnostic accuracy of MRI and initial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology analysis results in at least 10%-15% false negative diagnoses of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) of solid tumors, thus postponing start of therapy. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to determine the diagnostic value of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM)-based flow cytometry versus cytology in CSF for the diagnosis of LM in patients with epithelial tumors. METHODS: Patients with a clinical suspicion of LM but a negative or inconclusive MRI in whom a diagnostic lumbar puncture has to be performed were included. At least 5 mL of CSF for cytology, 5 mL for flow cytometry, 2 mL for cell count and biochemistry, and 8 mL whole blood samples for circulating tumor cells measurements and biochemistry were drawn. Tumor cells in CSF and whole blood were detected by multiparameter flow cytometry using EpCAM antibody. RESULTS: In total 29 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. Thirteen patients were ultimately diagnosed with LM. The flow cytometry assay showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for diagnosing LM, while sensitivity of CSF cytology was only 61.5%. Cell count or biochemical parameters in CSF were abnormal in 100% of patients with LM. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the EpCAM-based flow cytometry assay is superior to CSF cytology for the diagnosis of LM in patients with an epithelial tumor, a clinical suspicion of LM, and a nonconclusive MRI. Confirmation of these data is needed in a larger dataset to recommend dual CSF diagnostics for LM. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01713699.
BACKGROUND: Moderate diagnostic accuracy of MRI and initial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology analysis results in at least 10%-15% false negative diagnoses of leptomeningeal metastases (LM) of solid tumors, thus postponing start of therapy. The aim of this prospective clinical study was to determine the diagnostic value of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM)-based flow cytometry versus cytology in CSF for the diagnosis of LM in patients with epithelial tumors. METHODS:Patients with a clinical suspicion of LM but a negative or inconclusive MRI in whom a diagnostic lumbar puncture has to be performed were included. At least 5 mL of CSF for cytology, 5 mL for flow cytometry, 2 mL for cell count and biochemistry, and 8 mL whole blood samples for circulating tumor cells measurements and biochemistry were drawn. Tumor cells in CSF and whole blood were detected by multiparameter flow cytometry using EpCAM antibody. RESULTS: In total 29 eligible patients were enrolled in the study. Thirteen patients were ultimately diagnosed with LM. The flow cytometry assay showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for diagnosing LM, while sensitivity of CSF cytology was only 61.5%. Cell count or biochemical parameters in CSF were abnormal in 100% of patients with LM. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the EpCAM-based flow cytometry assay is superior to CSF cytology for the diagnosis of LM in patients with an epithelial tumor, a clinical suspicion of LM, and a nonconclusive MRI. Confirmation of these data is needed in a larger dataset to recommend dual CSF diagnostics for LM. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01713699.
Authors: Marc Chamberlain; Riccardo Soffietti; Jeffrey Raizer; Roberta Rudà; Dieta Brandsma; Willem Boogerd; Sophie Taillibert; Morris D Groves; Emilie Le Rhun; Larry Junck; Martin van den Bent; Patrick Y Wen; Kurt A Jaeckle Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Wyndham H Wilson; Jacoline E C Bromberg; Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson; Seth M Steinberg; Lourdes Martin-Martin; Carmen Muñiz; Juan Manuel Sancho; Maria Dolores Caballero; Marjan A Davidis; Rik A Brooimans; Blanca Sanchez-Gonzalez; Antonio Salar; Eva González-Barca; Jose Maria Ribera; Margaret Shovlin; Armando Filie; Kieron Dunleavy; Thomas Mehrling; Michele Spina; Alberto Orfao Journal: Haematologica Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Dieta Brandsma; Emile E Voest; Wilco de Jager; Hans Bonfrer; Ale Algra; Willem Boogerd; Tiny Korse; Jaap C Reijneveld; Marcel M Verbeek; Ger Rijkers; Martin J B Taphoorn Journal: J Neurol Date: 2006-09-22 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: D Subirá; M Simó; J Illán; C Serrano; S Castañón; R Gonzalo; J J Granizo; M Martínez-García; M Navarro; J Pardo; J Bruna Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: J E C Bromberg; D A Breems; J Kraan; G Bikker; B van der Holt; P Sillevis Smitt; M J van den Bent; M van't Veer; J W Gratama Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Akshal S Patel; Joshua E Allen; David T Dicker; Kristi L Peters; Jonas M Sheehan; Michael J Glantz; Wafik S El-Deiry Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2011-10
Authors: Nicholas B Figura; Victoria T Rizk; Avan J Armaghani; John A Arrington; Arnold B Etame; Hyo S Han; Brian J Czerniecki; Peter A Forsyth; Kamran A Ahmed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lindsay Angus; John W M Martens; Martin J van den Bent; Peter A E Sillevis Smitt; Stefan Sleijfer; Agnes Jager Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Margaux Wooster; Julia E McGuinness; Kathleen M Fenn; Veena M Singh; Lauren E Franks; Shing Lee; David Cieremans; Andrew B Lassman; Dawn L Hershman; Katherine D Crew; Melissa K Accordino; Meghna S Trivedi; Fabio Iwamoto; Mary R Welch; Aya Haggiagi; Robbie D Schultz; Lan Huynh; Edgar Sales; Deanna Fisher; Julie Ann Mayer; Teri Kreisl; Kevin Kalinsky Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 3.078
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: Xuling Lin; Martin Fleisher; Marc Rosenblum; Oscar Lin; Adrienne Boire; Samuel Briggs; Yevgeniya Bensman; Brenda Hurtado; Larisa Shagabayeva; Lisa M DeAngelis; Katherine S Panageas; Antonio Omuro; Elena I Pentsova Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Iole Cordone; Serena Masi; Valentina Summa; Mariantonia Carosi; Antonello Vidiri; Alessandra Fabi; Alessia Pasquale; Laura Conti; Immacolata Rosito; Carmine Maria Carapella; Veronica Villani; Andrea Pace Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Adrienne Boire; Dieta Brandsma; Priscilla K Brastianos; Emilie Le Rhun; Manmeet Ahluwalia; Larry Junck; Michael Glantz; Morris D Groves; Eudocia Q Lee; Nancy Lin; Jeffrey Raizer; Roberta Rudà; Michael Weller; Martin J Van den Bent; Michael A Vogelbaum; Susan Chang; Patrick Y Wen; Riccardo Soffietti Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 12.300