Emma E van der Toom1,2, Vincent P Groot3,4, Stephanie A Glavaris1, Georgios Gemenetzis3, Heather J Chalfin1, Laura D Wood5,6, Christopher L Wolfgang3, Jean J M C H de la Rosette2, Theo M de Reijke2, Kenneth J Pienta1. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pathology, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Oncology, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) can provide important information on patient's prognosis and treatment efficacy. Currently, a plethora of methods is available for the detection of these rare cells. We compared the outcomes of two of those methods to enumerate and characterize CTCs in patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). First, the selection-free AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system (RareCyte® , Inc., Seattle, WA) and second, the ISET system (Rarecells Diagnostics, France), a CTC detection method based on cell size-exclusion. METHODS: Peripheral blood samples were obtained from 15 patients with metastatic PCa and processed in parallel, using both methods according to manufacturer's protocol. CTCs were identified by immunofluorescence, using commercially available antibodies to pancytokeratin (PanCK), EpCAM, CD45/CD66b/CD34/CD11b/CD14 (AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system), and pancytokeratin, vimentin (Vim) and CD45 (ISET system). RESULTS: The median CTC count was 5 CTCs/7.5 mL (range, 0-20) for the AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system and 37 CTCs/7.5 mL (range, 8-139) for the ISET system (P < 0.001). Total CTC counts obtained for the two methods were correlated (r = 0.750, P = 0.001). When separating the total CTC count obtained with the ISET system in PanCK+/Vim- and PanCK+/Vim+ CTCs, the total CTC count obtained with the AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system was moderately correlated with the PanCK+/Vim- CTCs, and strongly correlated with the PanCK+/Vim+ CTCs (r = 0.700, P = 0.004 and r = 0.810, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight significant disparities in the enumeration and phenotype of CTCs detected by both techniques. Although the median amount of CTCs/7.5 mL differed significantly, total CTC counts of both methods were strongly correlated. For future studies, a more uniform approach to the isolation and definition of CTCs based on immunofluorescent stains is needed to provide reproducible results that can be correlated with clinical outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) can provide important information on patient's prognosis and treatment efficacy. Currently, a plethora of methods is available for the detection of these rare cells. We compared the outcomes of two of those methods to enumerate and characterize CTCs in patients with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). First, the selection-free AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system (RareCyte® , Inc., Seattle, WA) and second, the ISET system (Rarecells Diagnostics, France), a CTC detection method based on cell size-exclusion. METHODS: Peripheral blood samples were obtained from 15 patients with metastatic PCa and processed in parallel, using both methods according to manufacturer's protocol. CTCs were identified by immunofluorescence, using commercially available antibodies to pancytokeratin (PanCK), EpCAM, CD45/CD66b/CD34/CD11b/CD14 (AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system), and pancytokeratin, vimentin (Vim) and CD45 (ISET system). RESULTS: The median CTC count was 5 CTCs/7.5 mL (range, 0-20) for the AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system and 37 CTCs/7.5 mL (range, 8-139) for the ISET system (P < 0.001). Total CTC counts obtained for the two methods were correlated (r = 0.750, P = 0.001). When separating the total CTC count obtained with the ISET system in PanCK+/Vim- and PanCK+/Vim+ CTCs, the total CTC count obtained with the AccuCyte® - CyteFinder® system was moderately correlated with the PanCK+/Vim- CTCs, and strongly correlated with the PanCK+/Vim+ CTCs (r = 0.700, P = 0.004 and r = 0.810, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight significant disparities in the enumeration and phenotype of CTCs detected by both techniques. Although the median amount of CTCs/7.5 mL differed significantly, total CTC counts of both methods were strongly correlated. For future studies, a more uniform approach to the isolation and definition of CTCs based on immunofluorescent stains is needed to provide reproducible results that can be correlated with clinical outcomes.
Authors: Irene Casanova-Salas; Alejandro Athie; Paul C Boutros; Marzia Del Re; David T Miyamoto; Kenneth J Pienta; Edwin M Posadas; Adam G Sowalsky; Arnulf Stenzl; Alexander W Wyatt; Joaquin Mateo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 24.267
Authors: Hidenori Takagi; Liang Dong; Morgan D Kuczler; Kara Lombardo; Mitsuharu Hirai; Sarah R Amend; Kenneth J Pienta Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Rossana Signorelli; Teresa Maidana Giret; Oliver Umland; Marco Hadisurya; Shweta Lavania; John Lalith Charles Richard; Ashley Middleton; Melinda Minucci Boone; Ayse Burcu Ergonul; Weiguo Andy Tao; Haleh Amirian; Anton Iliuk; Aliya Khan; Robert Diaz; Daniel Bilbao Cortes; Monica Garcia-Buitrago; Harrys Kishore Charles Jacob Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-08-16