Literature DB >> 32115854

The combination of size-based separation and selection-free technology provides higher circulating tumour cells detection sensitivity than either method alone in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Liang Dong1,2, Zhongyuan Zhang1, Kimberly Smith1, Morgan D Kuczler1, Diane Reyes1, Sarah R Amend1, Yoon-Kyoung Cho3,4, Wei Xue2, Kenneth J Pienta1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the circulating tumour cells (CTCs) capture abilities of two technologies that are not dependent on cell-surface marker expression: a selection-free platform [AccuCyte® -CyteFinder® system (Rarecyte)] and a size-based platform [fluid-assisted separation technology (FAST)]. In addition, the combination of the two systems to more completely assess CTCs was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 28 patients with metastatic prostate cancer were included. Two 6 mL peripheral blood samples were taken from each patient at the same time-point. The samples were then subjected to the two different technology platforms in parallel. An additional group of samples was acquired by applying the waste chamber material from the FAST-group tests (flow-through that goes through the FAST filter membrane) to the Rarecyte system for the detection any CTCs that were not captured by FAST.
RESULTS: The three groups had significantly different putative CTC-positive tests, with positive rates of 29% for Rarecyte, 57% for FAST, and 79% for the combination. We also assessed CTC phenotype: 56.6% of the CTCs were cytokeratin (CK)+/epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM)-, 3.1% were CK-/EpCAM+, and 40.3% were CK+/EPCAM+. The captured CTCs diameter ranged from 5.2 to 16.9 µm. The mean CTC size from the FAST waste chamber was significantly smaller. The diameters for each of the phenotypic groups were significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight disparities in the positive rates and enumerated CTC numbers detected by the two techniques. Notably, the combination of the two technologies resulted in the highest CTC-capture rates. Smaller CTCs were more likely to be missed by the FAST as they passed through the filter system. Sizes of CTCs varied with different cell surface marker phenotypes.
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  circulating tumour cells; metastatic prostate cancer; selection-free technology; size-based separation technology

Year:  2020        PMID: 32115854     DOI: 10.1111/bju.15041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  4 in total

1.  Strategies for Isolating and Propagating Circulating Tumor Cells in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Gerit Theil; Joanna Bialek; Christine Weiß; Felix Lindner; Paolo Fornara
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-15

2.  Circulating Tumor Cells Enumerated by a Centrifugal Microfluidic Device as a Predictive Marker for Monitoring Ovarian Cancer Treatment: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Hyera Kim; Minji Lim; Jin Young Kim; So-Jin Shin; Yoon-Kyoung Cho; Chi Heum Cho
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-23

3.  Analysis of the Circulating Tumor Cell Capture Ability of a Slit Filter-Based Method in Comparison to a Selection-Free Method in Multiple Cancer Types.

Authors:  Hidenori Takagi; Liang Dong; Morgan D Kuczler; Kara Lombardo; Mitsuharu Hirai; Sarah R Amend; Kenneth J Pienta
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Isolation of Circulating Tumor Cells from Seminal Fluid of Patients with Prostate Cancer Using Inertial Microfluidics.

Authors:  Alexey S Rzhevskiy; Alina Y Kapitannikova; Steven A Vasilescu; Tamilla A Karashaeva; Sajad Razavi Bazaz; Mark S Taratkin; Dmitry V Enikeev; Vladimir Y Lekarev; Evgeniy V Shpot; Denis V Butnaru; Sergey M Deyev; Jean Paul Thiery; Andrei V Zvyagin; Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 6.575

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.