PURPOSE: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection methods based on epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) have low detection rates in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Meanwhile, folate receptor alpha (FRα) has high expression in EOC cells. We explored the feasibility of combining FRα and EpCAM as CTC capture targets in EOC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EpCAM and FRα antibodies were linked to magnetic nanospheres (MNs) using the principle of carbodiimide chemistry. Blood samples from healthy donor spiked with A2780 ovarian cancer cells were used for detecting the capture rate. Ninety-five blood samples from 30 patients with EOC were used for comparing the positive rate of detection when using anti-EpCAM-MNs alone with that when using combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs. Samples from 28 patients initially diagnosed with EOC and 20 patients with ovarian benign disease were used for evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs. RESULTS: Regression analysis between the number of recovered and that of spiked A2780 cells revealed yEpCAM = 0.535x (R2 = 0.99), yFRα = 0.901x (R2 = 0.99), and yEpCAM+FRα = 0.928x (R2 = 0.99). In mixtures of A2780 and MCF7 cells, the capture rate was 92% using the combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs, exceeding the rate when using anti-EpCAM-MNs or anti-FRα-MNs alone by approximately 20% (P < 0.01). The combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs showed a significantly increased positive rate of CTC detection in EOC patients compared with anti-EpCAM-MNs alone (χ2 = 14.45, P < 0.001). Sensitivity values were 0.536 and 0.75 and specificity values were 0.9 and 0.85 when using anti-EpCAM-MNs alone and when using the combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of FRα and EpCAM is feasible as a CTC capture target of CTC detection in patients with EOC.
PURPOSE: Circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection methods based on epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) have low detection rates in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Meanwhile, folate receptor alpha (FRα) has high expression in EOC cells. We explored the feasibility of combining FRα and EpCAM as CTC capture targets in EOC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EpCAM and FRα antibodies were linked to magnetic nanospheres (MNs) using the principle of carbodiimide chemistry. Blood samples from healthy donor spiked with A2780 ovarian cancer cells were used for detecting the capture rate. Ninety-five blood samples from 30 patients with EOC were used for comparing the positive rate of detection when using anti-EpCAM-MNs alone with that when using combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs. Samples from 28 patients initially diagnosed with EOC and 20 patients with ovarian benign disease were used for evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs. RESULTS: Regression analysis between the number of recovered and that of spiked A2780 cells revealed yEpCAM = 0.535x (R2 = 0.99), yFRα = 0.901x (R2 = 0.99), and yEpCAM+FRα = 0.928x (R2 = 0.99). In mixtures of A2780 and MCF7 cells, the capture rate was 92% using the combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs, exceeding the rate when using anti-EpCAM-MNs or anti-FRα-MNs alone by approximately 20% (P < 0.01). The combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs showed a significantly increased positive rate of CTC detection in EOC patients compared with anti-EpCAM-MNs alone (χ2 = 14.45, P < 0.001). Sensitivity values were 0.536 and 0.75 and specificity values were 0.9 and 0.85 when using anti-EpCAM-MNs alone and when using the combination of anti-EpCAM-MNs and anti-FRα-MNs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of FRα and EpCAM is feasible as a CTC capture target of CTC detection in patients with EOC.
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: Soumya V Nair; Małgorzata A Witek; Joshua M Jackson; Maria A M Lindell; Sally A Hunsucker; Travis Sapp; Caroline E Perry; Mateusz L Hupert; Victoria Bae-Jump; Paola A Gehrig; Weiya Z Wysham; Paul M Armistead; Peter Voorhees; Steven A Soper Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Irène Baccelli; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sabine Riethdorf; Albrecht Stenzinger; Anja Schillert; Vanessa Vogel; Corinna Klein; Massimo Saini; Tobias Bäuerle; Markus Wallwiener; Tim Holland-Letz; Thomas Höfner; Martin Sprick; Martina Scharpff; Frederik Marmé; Hans Peter Sinn; Klaus Pantel; Wilko Weichert; Andreas Trumpp Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2013-04-21 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kimberly R Kalli; Ann L Oberg; Gary L Keeney; Teresa J H Christianson; Philip S Low; Keith L Knutson; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emil Lou; Rachel I Vogel; Deanna Teoh; Spencer Hoostal; Aaron Grad; Matthew Gerber; Minnu Monu; Tomasz Lukaszewski; Jaai Deshpande; Michael A Linden; Melissa A Geller Journal: Lab Med Date: 2018-03-21
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
Authors: Vasilij Koshkin; Mariana Bleker De Oliveira; Chun Peng; Laurie E Ailles; Geoffrey Liu; Allan Covens; Sergey N Krylov Journal: Mol Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-14