Corinna Keup1, Pawel Mach2, Bahriye Aktas2,3, Mitra Tewes4, Hans-Christian Kolberg5, Siegfried Hauch6, Markus Sprenger-Haussels6, Rainer Kimmig2, Sabine Kasimir-Bauer2. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Essen, Germany; Corinna.Keup@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Leipzig, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine (Cancer Research), University Hospital of Essen, Germany. 5. Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, Marienhospital Bottrop, Germany. 6. QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsies are discussed to provide surrogate markers for therapy stratification and monitoring. We compared messenger RNA (mRNA) profiles of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to estimate their utility in therapy management. METHODS: Blood was collected from 35 hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative patients with MBC at the time of disease progression and at 2 consecutive staging time points. CTCs were isolated from 5 mL of blood by positive immunomagnetic selection, and EVs from 4 mL of plasma by a membrane affinity-based procedure. mRNA was reverse transcribed, preamplified, and analyzed for 18 genes by multimarker quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays. RNA profiles were normalized to healthy donor controls (n = 20), and results were correlated with therapy outcome. RESULTS: There were great differences in mRNA profiles of EVs and CTCs, with only 5% (21/403) of positive signals identical in both fractions. Transcripts involved in the PI3K signaling pathway were frequently overexpressed in CTCs, and AURKA, PARP1, and SRC signals appeared more often in EVs. Of all patients, 40% and 34% showed ERBB2 and ERBB3 signals, respectively, in CTCs, which was significantly associated with disease progression (P = 0.007). Whereas MTOR signals in CTCs significantly correlated with response (P = 0.046), signals in EVs indicated therapy failure (P = 0.011). The presence of AURKA signals in EVs seemed to be a marker for the indication of unsuccessful treatment of bone metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the potential of CTCs and EVs for therapy monitoring and the need for critical evaluation of the implementation of any liquid biopsy in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsies are discussed to provide surrogate markers for therapy stratification and monitoring. We compared messenger RNA (mRNA) profiles of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to estimate their utility in therapy management. METHODS: Blood was collected from 35 hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative patients with MBC at the time of disease progression and at 2 consecutive staging time points. CTCs were isolated from 5 mL of blood by positive immunomagnetic selection, and EVs from 4 mL of plasma by a membrane affinity-based procedure. mRNA was reverse transcribed, preamplified, and analyzed for 18 genes by multimarker quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assays. RNA profiles were normalized to healthy donor controls (n = 20), and results were correlated with therapy outcome. RESULTS: There were great differences in mRNA profiles of EVs and CTCs, with only 5% (21/403) of positive signals identical in both fractions. Transcripts involved in the PI3K signaling pathway were frequently overexpressed in CTCs, and AURKA, PARP1, and SRC signals appeared more often in EVs. Of all patients, 40% and 34% showed ERBB2 and ERBB3 signals, respectively, in CTCs, which was significantly associated with disease progression (P = 0.007). Whereas MTOR signals in CTCs significantly correlated with response (P = 0.046), signals in EVs indicated therapy failure (P = 0.011). The presence of AURKA signals in EVs seemed to be a marker for the indication of unsuccessful treatment of bone metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the potential of CTCs and EVs for therapy monitoring and the need for critical evaluation of the implementation of any liquid biopsy in clinical practice.
Authors: Yirizhati Aili; Nuersimanguli Maimaitiming; Yusufu Mahemuti; Hu Qin; Yongxin Wang; Zengliang Wang Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Germana Rappa; Caterina Puglisi; Mark F Santos; Stefano Forte; Lorenzo Memeo; Aurelio Lorico Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Afroditi Nanou; M Craig Miller; Leonie L Zeune; Sanne de Wit; Cornelis J A Punt; Harry J M Groen; Daniel F Hayes; Johann S de Bono; Leon W M M Terstappen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ryan J O Dowling; Joseph A Sparano; Pamela J Goodwin; Francois-Clement Bidard; David W Cescon; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Joseph O Deasy; Mitch Dowsett; Robert J Gray; N Lynn Henry; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Jane Perlmutter; George W Sledge; Mangesh A Thorat; Scott V Bratman; Lisa A Carey; Martin C Chang; Angela DeMichele; Marguerite Ennis; Katarzyna J Jerzak; Larissa A Korde; Ana Elisa Lohmann; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Wendy R Parulekar; Meredith M Regan; Daniel Schramek; Vuk Stambolic; Timothy J Whelan; Antonio C Wolff; Jim R Woodgett; Kevin Kalinsky; Daniel F Hayes Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2019-08-10