BACKGROUND: The clinical assessment of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a blood-based biomarker is FDA-approved for use in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The objective of this prospective clinical study was to determine whether pretreatment CTCs are a useful diagnostic biomarker in women with complex pelvic masses. METHODS: Whole blood was collected from 49 women with newly diagnosed pelvic masses. The presence of CTCs was compared between women with and without ovarian cancer histopathologic diagnosis after surgery using a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: CTCs were absent in those with benign disease (0/14), present in 17% (5/29) of patients with a histologic diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma, and present in 80% (4/5) of patients with ovarian metastases from other cancers (P = 0.001). All 5 women with ovarian cancer who had CTCs present presented stage III or IV of the disease (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: CTCs were more prevalent in patients with metastases to the ovary than in primary ovarian carcinomas.
BACKGROUND: The clinical assessment of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a blood-based biomarker is FDA-approved for use in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The objective of this prospective clinical study was to determine whether pretreatment CTCs are a useful diagnostic biomarker in women with complex pelvic masses. METHODS: Whole blood was collected from 49 women with newly diagnosed pelvic masses. The presence of CTCs was compared between women with and without ovarian cancer histopathologic diagnosis after surgery using a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: CTCs were absent in those with benign disease (0/14), present in 17% (5/29) of patients with a histologic diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma, and present in 80% (4/5) of patients with ovarian metastases from other cancers (P = 0.001). All 5 women with ovarian cancer who had CTCs present presented stage III or IV of the disease (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: CTCs were more prevalent in patients with metastases to the ovary than in primary ovarian carcinomas.
Authors: Katarina Kolostova; Michael Pinkas; Anna Jakabova; Eliska Pospisilova; Pavla Svobodova; Jan Spicka; Martin Cegan; Rafal Matkowski; Vladimir Bobek Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Joyce F Liu; David Kindelberger; Courtney Doyle; Alarice Lowe; William T Barry; Ursula A Matulonis Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Emil Lou; Rachel I Vogel; Spencer Hoostal; Phillip Wong; Aaron Grad; Minnu Monu; Tomasz Łukaszewski; Jaai Deshpande; Elizabeth L Dickson; Molly Klein; Michael A Linden; Subbaya Subramanian; Deanna Teoh; Melissa A Geller Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-07-25
Authors: Dirk Timmerman; François Planchamp; Tom Bourne; Chiara Landolfo; Andreas du Bois; Luis Chiva; David Cibula; Nicole Concin; Daniela Fischerova; Wouter Froyman; Guillermo Gallardo Madueño; Birthe Lemley; Annika Loft; Liliana Mereu; Philippe Morice; Denis Querleu; Antonia Carla Testa; Ignace Vergote; Vincent Vandecaveye; Giovanni Scambia; Christina Fotopoulou Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.437