BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) remains challenging due to low sensitivity of CSF cytology and infrequent unequivocal MRI findings. In a previous pilot study, we showed that rare cell capture technology (RCCT) could be used to detect circulating tumor cells (CTC) in the CSF of patients with LM from epithelial tumors. To establish the diagnostic accuracy of CSF-CTC in the diagnosis of LM, we applied this technique in a distinct, larger cohort of patients. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with epithelial tumors and clinical suspicion of LM underwent CSF-CTC evaluation and standard MRI and CSF cytology examination. CSF-CTC enumeration was performed through an FDA-approved epithelial cell adhesion molecule-based RCCT immunomagnetic platform. LM was defined by either positive CSF cytology or imaging positive for LM. ROC analysis was utilized to define an optimal cutoff for CSF-CTC enumeration. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (36 breast, 31 lung, 28 others). LM was diagnosed in 30 patients (32%) based on CSF cytology (n = 12), MRI findings (n = 2), or both (n = 16). CSF-CTC were detected in 43/95 samples (median 19.3 CSF-CTC/mL, range 0.3 to 66.7). Based on ROC analysis, 1 CSF-CTC/mL provided the best threshold to diagnose LM, achieving a sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value 90%, and negative predictive value 97%. CONCLUSIONS: We defined ≥1 CSF-CTC/mL as the optimal cutoff for diagnosis of LM. CSF-CTC enumeration through RCCT is a robust tool to diagnose LM and should be considered in the routine LM workup in solid tumor patients.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) remains challenging due to low sensitivity of CSF cytology and infrequent unequivocal MRI findings. In a previous pilot study, we showed that rare cell capture technology (RCCT) could be used to detect circulating tumor cells (CTC) in the CSF of patients with LM from epithelial tumors. To establish the diagnostic accuracy of CSF-CTC in the diagnosis of LM, we applied this technique in a distinct, larger cohort of patients. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with epithelial tumors and clinical suspicion of LM underwent CSF-CTC evaluation and standard MRI and CSF cytology examination. CSF-CTC enumeration was performed through an FDA-approved epithelial cell adhesion molecule-based RCCT immunomagnetic platform. LM was defined by either positive CSF cytology or imaging positive for LM. ROC analysis was utilized to define an optimal cutoff for CSF-CTC enumeration. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (36 breast, 31 lung, 28 others). LM was diagnosed in 30 patients (32%) based on CSF cytology (n = 12), MRI findings (n = 2), or both (n = 16). CSF-CTC were detected in 43/95 samples (median 19.3 CSF-CTC/mL, range 0.3 to 66.7). Based on ROC analysis, 1 CSF-CTC/mL provided the best threshold to diagnose LM, achieving a sensitivity of 93%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value 90%, and negative predictive value 97%. CONCLUSIONS: We defined ≥1 CSF-CTC/mL as the optimal cutoff for diagnosis of LM. CSF-CTC enumeration through RCCT is a robust tool to diagnose LM and should be considered in the routine LM workup in solid tumor patients.
Authors: Karin Oechsle; Victoria Lange-Brock; Andreas Kruell; Carsten Bokemeyer; Maike de Wit Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.553
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: G Stockhammer; W Poewe; S Burgstaller; F Deisenhammer; A Muigg; S Kiechl; E Schmutzhard; H Maier; S Felber; P Schumacher; E Gunsilius; G Gastl Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-04-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jonathan W Riess; Seema Nagpal; Michael Iv; Michael Zeineh; Matthew A Gubens; Kavitha Ramchandran; Joel W Neal; Heather A Wakelee Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Howard I Scher; Xiaoyu Jia; Johann S de Bono; Martin Fleisher; Kenneth J Pienta; Derek Raghavan; Glenn Heller Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 41.316
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: 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: Yoshiaki Shoji; Satoru Furuhashi; Daniel F Kelly; Anton J Bilchik; Dave S B Hoon; Matias A Bustos Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Catherine A O'Connor; Jennifer S Park; Thomas Kaley; Brie Kezlarian; Marcia Edelweiss; T Jonathan Yang; Wungki Park; Diane Reidy; Anna M Varghese; Kenneth H Yu; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Rimas V Lukas; Jigisha P Thakkar; Massimo Cristofanilli; Sunandana Chandra; Jeffrey A Sosman; Jyoti D Patel; Priya Kumthekar; Roger Stupp; Maciej S Lesniak Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.130