| Literature DB >> 28415744 |
Issam Chebouti1,2, Sabine Kasimir-Bauer1,2, Paul Buderath1,2, Pauline Wimberger3,4,2, Siegfried Hauch5, Rainer Kimmig1,2, Jan Dominik Kuhlmann3,4,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assuming that tumor cell dissemination requires a shift to a mesenchymal phenotype, we analyzed the incidence of epithelial-to-mesenchymal-transition (EMT)-like circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in ovarian cancer patients and inquired, how their molecular phenotypes respond to platinum-based chemotherapy and influence outcome.Entities:
Keywords: Akt-2; PI3Kα; circulating tumor cells; epithelial-to-mesenchymal-transition; ovarian cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28415744 PMCID: PMC5564727 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Overall detection frequency of epithelial and EMT-like CTCs in ovarian cancer
The bar chart illustrates overall detection rates of epithelial and EMT-like CTCs in ovarian cancer patients before surgery and after chemotherapy. Percentages for the two classes of CTCs were calculated independently from each other and, in both cases, refer to the whole study population (before surgery: n = 91, after chemotherapy n = 31). A patient was considered “epithelial CTC-positive” or “EMT-like CTC-positive”, if at least one of the epithelial markers or one of the EMT-associated markers was detectable, respectively.
Figure 2Phenotypic overlap of epithelial and EMT-like CTCs
The pie chart depicts the overlap of epithelial and EMT-like CTCs in ovarian cancer patients before surgery and after chemotherapy. Percentages were calculated in reference to all patients with overall CTC-positivity. Besides patients with exclusively epithelial (blue) and exclusively EMT-like CTCs (red), there were also patients, harbouring both CTC populations in their blood (green).
Figure 3Heterogeneity of EMT-associated CTC-phenotypes and their response to platinum-based chemotherapy
The figure summarizes molecular phenotypes of EMT-like CTCs and their response to platinum-based chemotherapy. (A) The bar chart shows the marker distribution in epithelial CTC-positive patients. Percentages for EpCAM and Muc-1 were calculated independently from each other and in reference to only those patients with positivity for epithelial CTCs. (B) The stacked bar chart illustrates the marker distribution of epithelial CTC-positive patients, also considering dual-positivity for EpCAM and Muc-1. (C) The bar chart shows the marker distribution in EMT-like CTC-positive patients. Percentages for PI3Kα, Akt-2 and Twist were calculated independently from each other and in reference to only those patients with positivity for EMT-like CTCs. (D) The stacked bar chart illustrates the marker distribution in EMT-like CTC-positive patients, now also considering dual- or triple positivity for EMT-associated transcripts.
Figure 4Prognostic relevance of epithelial and EMT-like CTCs
The Kaplan-Meier plots show prognostic relevance of different CTC-subtypes at primary diagnosis. (A, B): epithelial CTCs in FIGO I-III patients (thus without distant metastasis) (C): epithelial or PI3Kα-positive CTCs in the unselected patient cohort (D, E): epithelial or PI3Kα-positive EMT-like CTCs in FIGO I-III patients. Red curves represent patients, positive for the respective CTC-subtype(s); green curves represent patients, negative for the indicated CTC-subtype(s).
Patient characteristics at the time of primary diagnosis
| Total | 95 |
|---|---|
| Age | median 61 years, (31–82) years |
| FIGO stage | |
| I–II | 16 (17%) |
| III | 61 (64%) |
| IV | 18 (19%) |
| Nodal status | |
| No | 33 (37%) |
| N1 | 32 (43%) |
| Nx | 30 (20%) |
| Grading | |
| I–II | 32 (43%) |
| III | 63 (57%) |
| Residual tumor | |
| Macroscopic complete resection | 48 (51%) |
| Any residual tumor | 40 (42%) |
| Unknown | 7 (7%) |
| Histologic type | |
| Serous | 81 (80%) |
| Mucinous | 5 (14%) |
| Other | 9 (6%) |
| Survival | |
| PFS 1 | median 6 months, (0–51 months) |
| OS2 | median 21 months, (1–59 months) |
| Alive | 15 (16%) |
| Dead | 72 (76%) |
| Unknown | 8 (8%) |
| Recurrence | |
| No relapse | 50 (43%) |
| Relapse | 28 (55%) |
| Unknown | 17 (2%) |
1PFS: progression-free survival, 2OS: overall survival