| Literature DB >> 33688202 |
Qian Zhang1,2, Wanting Xing1,2, Jie Zhang1,2, Junwen Hu1,2, Lunan Qi1,2,3, Bangde Xiang1,2,3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between cytokeratin 19 (CK19) expression and levels of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in preoperative peripheral blood of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the potential influence of that relationship on prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CanPatrol™ CTC-enrichment technique and in situ hybridization (ISH) were used to enrich and classify CTCs undergoing the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) from blood samples of 105 HCC patients. CK19 immunohistochemistry staining was performed on HCC tissues and compared with demographic and clinical data.Entities:
Keywords: circulating tumor cells; cytokeratin 19; hepatocellular carcinoma; prognosis; tumor-free survival
Year: 2021 PMID: 33688202 PMCID: PMC7936932 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S298576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1Flow chart of patient enrollment.
Notes: The 105 patients were divided into two sub-groups based on median CTC counts: patients were classified as having low total CTC count (>6) and as having high total CTC count (≥6)
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the 105 HCC Patients
| Variables | Categories | n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | <45 vs. ≥45 | 43 (41) vs 62 (59) |
| Sex | Male vs. Female | 91 (86.7) vs 14 (13.3) |
| HBsAg | Negative vs. Positive | 12 (11.4) vs 93 (88.6) |
| HBV-DNA | <5.0×102 vs. ≥5.0×102 | 30 (28.6) vs 75 (71.4) |
| AFP (ng/mL) | <400 vs. ≥400 | 46 (43.8) vs 59 (56.2) |
| Tumor size (cm) | <5 vs. ≥5 | 23 (21.9) vs 82 (78.1) |
| Tumor number | Single vs. Multiple | 65 (61.9) vs 40 (38.1) |
| Liver cirrhosis | Negative vs. Positive | 4 (3.8) vs 101 (96.2) |
| Edmondson Grade | I–II vs. III–IV | 63 (60.0) vs 42 (40.0) |
| BCLC stage | 0-A vs. B-C | 57 (54.3) vs 48 (45.7) |
| Tumor Capsule | Complete vs. Incomplete | 64 (61.0) vs 41 (39.0) |
| MVI | Negative vs. Positive | 33 (31.4) vs 72 (68.6) |
| PVTT | Negative vs. Positive | 82 (78.1) vs 23 (21.9) |
Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; BCLC stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV-DNA, hepatitis B virus DNA; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; MVI, microvascular invasion; PVTT, portal vein tumor thrombosis.
Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics Between HCC Patients Positive or Negative for CK19
| Variables | CK19-Negative | CK19-Positive | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 78 | n = 27 | ||
| <45 | 27 (34.6) | 16 (59.3) | 0.025* |
| ≥45 | 51 (65.4) | 11 (40.7) | |
| Male | 67 (85.9) | 24 (88.9) | 0.693 |
| Female | 11 (14.1) | 3 (11.1) | |
| Negative | 8 (10.3) | 4 (14.8) | 0.771 |
| Positive | 70 (89.7) | 23 (85.2) | |
| <5.0×102 | 24 (30.8) | 6 (22.2) | 0.397 |
| ≥5.0×102 | 54 (69.2) | 21 (77.8) | |
| <400 | 39 (50.0) | 7 (25.9) | 0.030* |
| ≥400 | 39 (50.0) | 20 (74.1) | |
| <5 | 19 (24.4) | 4 (14.8) | 0.301 |
| ≥5 | 59 (75.6) | 23 (85.2) | |
| Single | 48 (61.5) | 17 (63.0) | 0.895 |
| Multiple | 30 (38.5) | 10 (37.0) | |
| Negative | 4 (5.1) | 0 | 0.538 |
| Positive | 74 (94.9) | 27 (100) | |
| III–IV | 28 (35.9) | 14 (51.9) | 0.145 |
| I–II | 50 (64.1) | 13 (48.1) | |
| 0–A | 42 (53.8) | 15 (55.6) | 0.878 |
| B–C | 36 (46.2) | 12 (44.4) | |
| Complete | 52 (66.7) | 12 (44.4) | 0.041* |
| Incomplete | 26 (33.3) | 15 (55.6) | |
| Negative | 26 (33.3) | 7 (25.9) | 0.475 |
| Positive | 52 (66.7) | 20 (74.1) | |
| Negative | 63 (80.8) | 19 (70.4) | 0.260 |
| Positive | 15 (19.2) | 8 (29.6) | |
Notes: Values are n (%); P < 0.05 was considered significant; *p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; BCLC stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage; CK19, cytokeratin 19; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HBV-DNA, hepatitis B virus DNA; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; MVI, microvascular invasion; PVTT, portal vein tumor thrombosis.
Figure 2Immunostaining and prognostic significance of CK19. (A) Tumor sections of the same patient were analyzed by hematoxylin and eosin staining (top) and immunohistochemical staining against CK19 (bottom). The arrowheads was used to indicate a few strong examples of CK19 staining. (B) Tumor-free survival after surgery among patients in CK19- or CK19+ patients. The Kaplan–Meier curve was determined by the Log rank test. Comparison of CK19 expression between CK19- or CK19+ patients stratified by age (C), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level (D) or complete of tumor capsule (E). Difference analysis were assessed for significance using the Pearson chi-squared test.
Figure 3Circulating tumor cell (CTC) subpopulations and their relationship with survival. CTCs were stained for epithelial markers (EpCAM and CK8/18/19, red fluorescence) and mesenchymal markers (Vimentin and Twist, green fluorescence) and classified as epithelial CTCs (E-CTCs) (A), epithelial/mesenchymal hybrid CTCs (E/M-CTCs) (B) or mesenchymal CTCs (M-CTCs) (C). Comparison of CTC counts in patients stratified by alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level (D), tumor number (E), hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (F), and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage (G). Difference analysis were assessed for significance using the Pearson chi-squared test.
Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics Between HCC Patients with Low (<6) or High (≥6) CTC Counts
| Variables | CTC<6 | CTC≥6 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 48 | n = 57 | ||
| <45 | 15 (31.2) | 28 (49.1) | 0.064 |
| ≥45 | 33 (68.8) | 29 (50.9) | |
| Male | 40 (83.3) | 51 (89.5) | 0.356 |
| Female | 8 (16.7) | 6 (10.5) | |
| Negative | 6 (12.5) | 6 (10.5) | 0.751 |
| Positive | 42 (87.5) | 51 (89.5) | |
| <5.0×102 | 19 (39.6) | 11 (19.3) | 0.022* |
| ≥5.0×102 | 29 (60.4) | 46 (80.7) | |
| <400 | 28 (58.3) | 18 (31.6) | 0.006* |
| ≥400 | 20 (41.7) | 39 (68.4) | |
| <5 | 13 (27.1) | 10 (17.5) | 0.239 |
| ≥5 | 35 (72.9) | 47 (82.5) | |
| Single | 35 (72.9) | 30 (52.6) | 0.033* |
| Multiple | 13 (27.1) | 27 (47.4) | |
| Negative | 4 (8.3) | 0 | 0.087 |
| Positive | 44 (91.7) | 57 (100) | |
| III–IV | 16 (33.3) | 26 (45.6) | 0.201 |
| I–II | 32 (66.7) | 31 (54.4) | |
| 0–A | 32 (66.7) | 25 (43.9) | 0.019* |
| B–C | 16 (33.3) | 32 (56.1) | |
| Complete | 34 (70.8) | 30 (52.6) | 0.057 |
| Incomplete | 14 (29.2) | 27 (47.4) | |
| Negative | 17 (35.4) | 16 (28.1) | 0.419 |
| Positive | 31 (64.6) | 41 (71.9) | |
| Negative | 41 (85.4) | 41 (71.9) | 0.096 |
| Positive | 7 (14.6) | 16 (28.1) | |
Notes: Values are n (%); P < 0.05 was considered significant; *p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; BCLC stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage; CTCs, circulating tumor cells; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HBV-DNA, hepatitis B virus DNA; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; MVI, microvascular invasion; PVTT, portal vein tumor thrombosis.
Figure 4Association of CTC counts with CK19 immunostaining, and survival analysis based on this association. (A) Comparison of CK19- or CK19+ patients stratified by CTC count <6 or ≥6. Difference analysis were assessed for significance using the Pearson chi-squared test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. (B) Tumor-free survival after surgery among patients stratified by both CK19 expression and CTC count. The Kaplan–Meier curve was determined by the Log rank test.
Distribution of CTCs’ Types in 105 HCC Patients Positive or Negative for CK19
| CTCs’ Type | Mean Rank | U | Z | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK19 Positive | CK19 Negative | ||||
| All CTCs | 65.54 | 48.66 | 714.50 | −2.488 | 0.013* |
| E-CTC | 56.00 | 51.96 | 972.00 | −6.04 | 0.546 |
| M-CTC | 62.28 | 49.79 | 802.50 | −1.991 | 0.046* |
| E/M-CTC | 62.50 | 49.71 | 796.50 | −1.896 | 0.058 |
Notes: P < 0.05 was considered significant; *p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: CK19, cytokeratin 19; CTCs, circulating tumor cells; E-CTC, epithelial CTCs; M-CTC, mesenchymal CTCs; E/M-CTC, epithelial/mesenchymal hybrid CTCs.