Menglin Bai1, Benkui Zou2, Zhendan Wang3, Pang Li4, Huansheng Wang2, Yang Ou5, Kai Cui5, Jiasheng Bian2, Sheng Li6, Xiaobin Xu7. 1. Queen Mary School, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China. 2. Department of Urological Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, Shandong, China. 3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, Shandong, China. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital Affiliated to Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 5. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, Shandong, China. 6. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, Shandong, China. drlisheng@sohu.com. 7. Laboratory of Fear and Anxiety Disorders, Institute of Life Science, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China. xuxiaobin70@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in cancer patients has diagnostic and prognostic importance. However, the clinical implications of CTC detection in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are still unclear. In this study, we investigated the clinical significance of CTCs using two detection systems, the CellSearch system (CSS) and isolation by size of epithelial tumor cells (ISET), among RCC patients. METHODS: We recruited 36 RCC patients and 22 healthy volunteers as controls. Blood was drawn before treatment. Samples were analyzed using the CSS and ISET. We prospectively followed the RCC patients to determine overall and progression-free survival. RESULTS: We did not detect CTCs in the control group using either the CSS or ISET. CTCs were detected in 7/36 patients (19.4%) using the CSS and in 13/36 patients (36.1%) using ISET, while circulating microemboli (CTMs) were detected in three patients (8.3%). The presence of ISET-detected CTCs correlated with clinical tumor node metastasis (TNM) stages, while the CSS-detected CTCs did not. After 36 months (median), CTCs detected by both methods failed to correlate with overall and progression-free survival among RCC patients. CONCLUSION: We discovered that ISET is more suitable than the CSS for detecting CTCs in RCC patients. The presence of CTCs/CTMs in RCC patients correlated with higher TNM stages, suggesting that the presence of CTCs could be a prognostic marker in RCC patients.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in cancerpatients has diagnostic and prognostic importance. However, the clinical implications of CTC detection in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are still unclear. In this study, we investigated the clinical significance of CTCs using two detection systems, the CellSearch system (CSS) and isolation by size of epithelial tumor cells (ISET), among RCCpatients. METHODS: We recruited 36 RCCpatients and 22 healthy volunteers as controls. Blood was drawn before treatment. Samples were analyzed using the CSS and ISET. We prospectively followed the RCCpatients to determine overall and progression-free survival. RESULTS: We did not detect CTCs in the control group using either the CSS or ISET. CTCs were detected in 7/36 patients (19.4%) using the CSS and in 13/36 patients (36.1%) using ISET, while circulating microemboli (CTMs) were detected in three patients (8.3%). The presence of ISET-detected CTCs correlated with clinical tumor node metastasis (TNM) stages, while the CSS-detected CTCs did not. After 36 months (median), CTCs detected by both methods failed to correlate with overall and progression-free survival among RCCpatients. CONCLUSION: We discovered that ISET is more suitable than the CSS for detecting CTCs in RCCpatients. The presence of CTCs/CTMs in RCCpatients correlated with higher TNM stages, suggesting that the presence of CTCs could be a prognostic marker in RCCpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
CellSearch; Circulating tumor cell; Isolation by size of epithelial tumor cell; Prognosis; Renal cell carcinoma
Authors: Michael A Gorin; James E Verdone; Emma van der Toom; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Mohamad E Allaf; Kenneth J Pienta Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: F Farace; C Massard; N Vimond; F Drusch; N Jacques; F Billiot; A Laplanche; A Chauchereau; L Lacroix; D Planchard; S Le Moulec; F André; K Fizazi; J C Soria; P Vielh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L Khoja; A Backen; R Sloane; L Menasce; D Ryder; M Krebs; R Board; G Clack; A Hughes; F Blackhall; J W Valle; C Dive Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Amin El-Heliebi; Thomas Kroneis; Evelyn Zöhrer; Johannes Haybaeck; Katja Fischereder; Karin Kampel-Kettner; Richard Zigeuner; Hannelore Pock; Regina Riedl; Rudolf Stauber; Jochen Bernd Geigl; Berthold Huppertz; Peter Sedlmayr; Carolin Lackner Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Dawei Ning; Kai Cui; Min Liu; Yang Ou; Zhendan Wang; Benkui Zou; Yangyang Shen; Xinyang Lu; Sheng Li; Pang Li Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2021-01-07
Authors: Petr Klezl; Eliska Pospisilova; Katarina Kolostova; Jindrich Sonsky; Ondrej Maly; Robert Grill; Ireneusz Pawlak; Vladimir Bobek Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.241