| Literature DB >> 31905736 |
Alexey S Rzhevskiy1,2,3, Sajad Razavi Bazaz4, Lin Ding4, Alina Kapitannikova1,2, Nima Sayyadi1,5, Douglas Campbell6, Bradley Walsh6, David Gillatt3, Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani2,4, Andrei V Zvyagin1,2.
Abstract
During the last decade, isolation of circulating tumour cells via blood liquid biopsy of prostate cancer (PCa) has attracted significant attention as an alternative, or substitute, to conventional diagnostic tests. However, it was previously determined that localised forms of PCa shed a small number of cancer cells into the bloodstream, and a large volume of blood is required just for a single test, which is impractical. To address this issue, urine has been used as an alternative to blood for liquid biopsy as a truly non-invasive, patient-friendly test. To this end, we developed a spiral microfluidic chip capable of isolating PCa cells from the urine of PCa patients. Potential clinical utility of the chip was demonstrated using anti-Glypican-1 (GPC-1) antibody as a model of the primary antibody in immunofluorescent assay for identification and detection of the collected tumour cells. The microchannel device was first evaluated using DU-145 cells in a diluted Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline sample, where it demonstrated >85 (±6) % efficiency. The microchannel proved to be functional in at least 79% of cases for capturing GPC1+ putative tumour cells from the urine of patients with localised PCa. More importantly, a correlation was found between the amount of the captured GPC1+ cells and crucial diagnostic and prognostic parameter of localised PCa-Gleason score. Thus, the technique demonstrated promise for further assessment of its diagnostic value in PCa detection, diagnosis, and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: cell separation; glycoprotein; inertial microfluidics; prostate cancer; tumour cells
Year: 2019 PMID: 31905736 PMCID: PMC7016827 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12010081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1A schematic representation of the workflow for PCa cell detection from the urine sample employing a spiral microfluidic chip. First, PCa cells shed from the prostate gland into the urethra are collected into a container in the process of urination. Then, the collected PCa cells present in urine are isolated via processing through the spiral microchannel. Finally, the collected cells are labelled with fluorescent antibodies, i.e., anti-GPC-1 and immunoassayed under a microscope.
Figure 2(A) schematic representation of the processing of a urine sample containing PCa cells through the spiral microfluidic chip. Samples are introduced via a peristaltic pump and then recycled until 1 mL of the urine sample remains in the sample tube. Then, PCa assaying is implemented by the use of fluorescent antibodies; (B) illustration of the bifurcation of the spiral, target (sample), and waste outlets. The results show that most of cells were collected through the target outlet. The flow rate of 1.7 mL/min was selected as the optimum flow rate for the separation efficiency of PCa cells; (C) 85 (±6) % of cells were collected through the sample outlet of the chip; (D) experimental setup used in this study; (E) state of urine sample before processing, and (F) after processing, when about 1 mL of sample remains in the tube. The remaining 1-mL contains most of PCa cells and is subsequently analysed as described.
Figure 3Numerous glypican-1+ (GPC-1+) cells (A), two GPC-1+ cells and one GPC-1− squamous epithelial cell (B) isolated from the samples of PCa patients. The GPC-1+ putative tumour cells typically featured a high ratio of the nucleus to cytoplasm size and were prone to grouping or clustering.
The number of glypican-1+ (GPC-1)+ cells detected in the urine samples and relevant clinical diagnostic test results. The number of cells with high GPC-1+ expression ( ) isolated from the patients’ and urine samples varied from 4 to 194 units with the median value of 22. was <8 in the urine samples of the healthy volunteers, i.e., 11 (79%) out of 14 healthy volunteers were registered PCa-negative in terms of the -number. The number of patients positive with confidence for GPC-1+ cells ( > 8) was 11 out of 14 (79%).
| Patient Number |
| Urine Sample Volume (mL) | N | Blood PSA level (ng/mL) | Total GS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23 | 90 | 1.6 × 104 | 5.4 | 6 |
| 2 | 21 | 30 | 8.1 × 103 | 8.7 | 7 |
| 3 | 37 | 100 | 1.3 × 104 | 7 | 8 |
| 4 | 16 | 60 | 6.3 × 104 | 4.4 | 6 |
| 5 | 4 | 60 | 4.4 × 103 | 11 | 8 |
| 6 | 10 | 40 | 5.2 × 104 | 4.9 | 7 |
| 7 | 37 | 30 | 1.5 × 104 | 7.2 | 7 |
| 8 | 12 | 90 | 8.3 × 104 | 3.9 | 7 |
| 9 | 194 | 40 | 3.6 × 104 | 7.9 | 8 |
| 10 | 42 | 50 | 7.4 × 104 | 11.6 | 6 |
| 11 | 0 | 40 | 1.9 × 104 | 1.3 | 6 |
| 12 | 37 | 30 | 9.7 × 103 | 11 | 7 |
| 13 | 11 | 50 | 1.5 × 104 | 5.5 | 6 |
| 14 | 0 | 70 | 2.7 × 103 | 5.6 | 6 |
n—number of GPC1+ cells; N—total number of cells in the analysed sample.
Figure 4Correlations between the amount of GPC1+ cells (), (, volume of urine sample), (, total number of cells in urine sample) and conventional clinicopathological parameters of the PCa–prostate specific antigen (PSA) level and Gleason score (GS). The lowest correlation was identified between and PSA level, and the highest correlation was identified between and GS.