| Literature DB >> 34778073 |
Yujin Pan1,2,3, Deyu Li1,2,3, Jiuhui Yang1,2,3, Ning Wang1,2,3, Erwei Xiao1,2,3, Lianyuan Tao1,2,3, Xiangming Ding2,3,4, Peichun Sun2,3,5, Dongxiao Li2,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much importance is attached to the clinical application value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs), meanwhile tumor-proximal CTCs detection has interested researchers for its unique advantage. This research mainly discusses the correlation of portal venous (PoV) CTCs counts in different epithelial-mesenchymal transition status with clinicopathologic parameters and postoperative prognosis in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients (PDAC).Entities:
Keywords: circulating tumor cell; epithelial-mesenchymal transition; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; portal venous; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34778073 PMCID: PMC8582019 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.757307
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Representative images of PoV, PV blood samples collection and typical multifluorescence signals of CTCs and leukocytes. (A) Collecting the portal venous blood sample. (B) Peripheral vessel blood sample was obtained by puncturing the cubital vein. (C) Based on mRNA sequence staining technology, the nuclei were stained with DAPI (blue), the epithelial markers (EpCAM and CK8/18/19) are indicated by red dots, the mesenchymal markers (Vimentin and Twist) are indicated by green dots, and the hybrid CTCs contain epithelial markers and mesenchymal markers are indicated by red and green dots. Leukocyte marker (CD45) is indicated by white dots. Scale bar = 5μm.
Figure 2The CTCs count paired comparison in PV and PoV samples (n=32). The detectable rate of T-CTCs in the PV sample (A) was lower than that of the PoV sample (B) (87.5% vs 96.9%). (C) Each CTCs phenotype (T-CTC, E-CTC, H-CTC, M-CTC) count of the PoV sample were higher than those of the PV sample.
Figure 3Comparison of different CTC phenotype counts of peripheral blood samples between the PDAC patients (n=32) with different postoperative prognosis, including recurrence or recurrence-free (A), metastasis or metastasis-free (B), and death or survival (C), through the Mann–Whitney U test, the results demonstrated that the recurrence patients (n=5) had significantly higher E-CTC counts than the recurrence-free patients (n=27) (P < 0.05). (D) ROC curves for PV E-CTC (cut-off = 2 CTCs/5 ml, AUC = 0.800 95% CI 0.621–0.920; P = 0.032) regarding on recurrence. (E) Kaplan-Meier RFS stratified with respect to the E-CTC cut-off value of 2/5 ml for PDAC patients, the curve showed patients with PV E-CTC ≥ 2/5ml had a significantly shorter RFS than patients with PV E-CTC < 2/5ml (P = 0.0002).
Correlation between PoV CTC phenotype count and baseline characteristics.
| Variables | n | T-CTC |
| E-CTC |
| H-CTC |
| M-CTC |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) | Median (IQR) | ||||||
| Gender | 0.487 | 0.142 | 0.742 | 0.061 | |||||
| Male | 34 | 7.5 (4.75-13.25) | 2 (1-4.25) | 4 (1.75-8) | 0 (0-1.25) | ||||
| Female | 26 | 7 (3-13.25) | 2 (0.75-3) | 4.5 (2-9.5) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Age (years) | 0.470 | 0.234 | 0.829 | 0.452 | |||||
| ≤65 | 38 | 7 (4-14) | 2 (1-3.25) | 4 (2-8.5) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| >65 | 22 | 7.5 (2-13) | 1.5 (0-4.25) | 5 (1.75-8.25) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| Diabetes | 0.336 | 0.343 | 0.099 | 0.942 | |||||
| No | 46 | 7 (3.75-13) | 2 (1-5) | 4 (1-7.5) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| Yes | 14 | 9.5 (4.75-15) | 2 (1-3) | 7 (3-13) | 0 (0-1.25) | ||||
| Hepatitis | 0.959 | 0.925 | 0.795 | 0.902 | |||||
| No | 51 | 7 (4-13) | 2 (1-4) | 5 (2-8) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| Yes | 9 | 7 (3.5-13.5) | 2 (1-3.5) | 3 (2.5-9) | 0 (0-2) | ||||
| Pre-op CA19-9 (u/ml) | 0.087 | 0.853 | 0.038 | 0.335 | |||||
| ≤37 | 23 | 6 (3-10) | 2 (1-4) | 3 (1-6) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| >37 | 37 | 8 (5-14) | 2 (1-3.5) | 6 (3-9.5) | 0 (0-1.5) | ||||
| Post-op CA19-9 (u/ml) |
|
|
| 0.339 | |||||
| ≤37 | 40 | 6.5 (3-11) | 2 (0.25-3) | 3 (1-7) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| >37 | 20 | 11.5 (6.25-18.75) | 3 (1.25-5.75) | 7 (3.25-15.25) | 0 (0-0.75) | ||||
| T stage | 0.061 |
| 0.514 | 0.367 | |||||
| T1-T2 | 30 | 6.5 (3-10.5) | 2 (0-2) | 4 (2-7) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| T3 | 30 | 10 (4.75-17.25) | 3 (1-5) | 5.5 (1-11.5) | 0 (0-2) | ||||
| Tumor location | 0.242 | 0.099 | 0.859 | 0.349 | |||||
| Head、neck | 29 | 9 (4-16) | 3 (1-4.5) | 5 (1-10.5) | 0 (0-1.5) | ||||
| Body、tail | 31 | 7 (3-13) | 2 (1-3) | 4 (2-8) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Lymph node invasion | 0.141 | 0.810 | 0.207 |
| |||||
| N0 | 30 | 6.5 (3-11.5) | 2 (0.75-3.25) | 3.5 (1.75-7.25) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| N1-N2 | 30 | 8.5 (4-14.75) | 2 (1-4) | 5.5 (2.75-10) | 0 (0-2.25) | ||||
| TNM stage 8th AJCC | 0.852 | 0.858 | 0.795 | 0.710 | |||||
| IA-IIB | 51 | 7 (4-13) | 2 (1-3) | 4 (2-8) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| III | 9 | 8 (3-21) | 2 (0.5-4.5) | 3 (1-15) | 0 (0-1.5) | ||||
| Nerve invasion | 0.064 | 0.128 | 0.240 | 0.225 | |||||
| No | 34 | 7 (3-10) | 2 (0-3) | 4 (2-7) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| Yes | 26 | 11 (4.75-17.25) | 2.5 (1-4.25) | 6.5 (1.75-13) | 0 (0-2) | ||||
| Differentiation | 0.125 | 0.201 | 0.375 |
| |||||
| High | 36 | 7 (3-11.5) | 2 (1-3) | 3.5 (2-7) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Middle and low | 24 | 10.5 (4.5-14) | 2.5 (1-5) | 5 (2.25-10.75) | 0.5 (0-2) | ||||
| Recurrence |
|
| 0.067 | 0.309 | |||||
| No | 49 | 7 (4-11.5) | 2 (1-3) | 4 (2-7) | 0 (0-1) | ||||
| Yes | 11 | 17 (6-23) | 5 (1-7) | 11 (3-18) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Metastasis | 0.068 | 0.075 | 0.616 |
| |||||
| No | 42 | 7 (3-11) | 2 (1-3) | 4 (2-8) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Yes | 18 | 12 (5.5-15) | 3 (2-4.25) | 5 (1.5-10) | 2 (0.75-3) | ||||
| Death | 0.278 | 0.070 | 0.439 |
| |||||
| No | 43 | 7 (3-13) | 2 (1-3) | 4 (2-9) | 0 (0-0) | ||||
| Yes | 17 | 12 (5-13.5) | 3 (1.5-5) | 4 (0.5-7.5) | 1 (0-3) |
Pre-op, preoperative; post-op, postoperative.
Bold values indicate that the results were statistically significant.
Figure 4The ROC curve for (A) PoV T-CTCs, (B) PoV E-CTCs on recurrence prediction, (C) PoV M-CTCs for metastasis prediction and (D) PoV M-CTCs for death prediction. The result of sensitivity, specificity and cut-off value of each ROC curve are depicted in .
ROC curves of PoV CTCs phenotype counts on postoperative progression.
| Clinical outcome | CTC phenotype | Cut-off value | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurrence | T-CTC | 14 | 63.6 | 87.8 | 0.717 |
|
| Recurrence | E-CTC | 5 | 54.55 | 87.76 | 0.721 |
|
| Metastasis | M-CTC | 1 | 77.78 | 85.71 | 0.842 |
|
| Death | M-CTC | 1 | 70.60 | 81.40 | 0.778 |
|
Bold values indicate that the results were statistically significant.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier curves for PDAC patients with different prognosis in high/low CTC subtype count group for (A) T-CTC, for patients with high T-CTCs (≥ 14/5 ml) vs low T-CTC (<14/5 ml) and the mean RFS was 26.44 months (95%CI 24.07-28.83) vs 16.51 (95%CI 10.17 - 22.85). (B) E-CTC, for patients with high E-CTCs (≥ 5/5 ml) vs low E-CTC (<5/5 ml) and the mean RFS was 25.84 month (95%CI 23.268- 28.416) vs 18.51 (95%CI 12.106 - 24.927). (C) M-CTC, for patients with high M-CTCs (≥ 1/5 ml) vs low M-CTC (<1/5 ml) and the mean MFS was 14.19 month (95%CI 10.77 - 17.61) vs 23.78 (95%CI 19.207 - 28.368). (D) M-CTC, for patients with high M-CTCs (≥ 1/5 ml) vs low M-CTC (<1/5 ml) and the mean OS was 17.28 months (95% CI 13.91 to 20.65) vs 22.87 months (95% CI 19.51 - 26.22).
Figure 6Typical multi-fluorescence signals of hybrid CTCs subtypes and correlation with prognosis. (A) Epithelial predominant (E > M) hybrid CTC, intermediate (E≈ M) hybrid CTC, or mesenchymal predominant (E
Univariate Cox regression analysis for postoperative progression.
| Variables | Recurrence Univariate Analysis | Metastasis Univariate Analysis | Death Univariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Gender: Male | 1.347 (0.410-4.425) | 0.623 | 0.779 (0.300-2.020) | 0.607 | 0.533 (0.187-1.525) | 0.241 |
| Age (years): ≤65 | 1.380 (0.419-4.549) | 0.596 | 0.520 (0.171-1.586) | 0.251 | 0.937 (0.326-2.689) | 0.903 |
| Diabetes: no | 0.726 (0.153-3.442) | 0.687 | 1.488 (0.547-4.048) | 0.436 | 1.482 (0.533-4.115) | 0.451 |
| Hepatitis: no | 1.978 (0.419-9.351) | 0.389 | 1.135 (0.257-5.017) | 0.867 | 2.762 (0.737-10.357) | 0.132 |
| Pre-op CA19-9 (u/ml): ≤37 | 1.294 (0.377-4.439) | 0.682 | 2.203 (0.722-6.728) | 0.165 | 1.329 (0.461-3.827) | 0.540 |
| Post-op CA19-9 (u/ml):≤37 | 9.432 (2.026-43.916) |
| 0.423 (0.122-1.464) | 0.175 | 0.540 (0.173-1.688) | 0.396 |
| T stage: T1-T2 | 5.675 (1.222-26.355) |
| 1.824 (.699-4.755) | 0.219 | 1.464 (0.548-3.906) | 0.447 |
| Tumor location Head、neck | 1.081 (0.304-3.842) | 0.904 | 0.439 (0.170-1.138) | 0.090 | 0.615 (0.236-1.603) | 0.320 |
| Total laparoscopic: no | 2.128 (0.564-8.037) | 0.265 | 0.555 (0.216-1.423) | 0.220 | 1.039 (0.390-2.771) | 0.939 |
| Lymph node invasion: N0 | 1.146 (0.347-3.785) | 0.823 | 6.355 (1.829-22.086) |
| 3.455 (1.112-10.733) |
|
| TNM stage: IA-IIB | 1.706 (0.362-8.049) | 0.500 | 1.624 (0.528-4.998) | 0.398 | 1.687 (0.537-5.295) | 0.371 |
| Nerve invasion: no | 2.628 (0.731-9.446) | 0.139 | 2.035 (0.769-5.380) | 0.152 | 1.920 (0.706-5.225) | 0.202 |
| Differentiation: High | 2.940 (0.849-10.185) | 0.089 | 3.253 (1.216-8.704) |
| 2.070 (0.757-5.661) | 0.156 |
| PoV E>M H-CTC (per 5mL): <3 | 6.867 (1.802-26.161) |
| 1.318 (0.492-3.528) | 0.583 | 0.935 (0.327-2.671) | 0.900 |
| PoV T-CTC (per 5mL): <14 | 8.075 (2.308-28.248) |
| 1.698 (0.596-4.837) | 0.321 | 1.016 (0.325-3.183) | 0.978 |
| PoV E-CTC (per 5mL): <5 | 4.989 (1.490-16.707) |
| 1.253 (.410-3.828) | 0.693 | 1.138 (0.385-3.365) | 0.815 |
| PoV M-CTC (per 5mL): <1 | 0.485 (0.103-2.274) | 0.358 | 7.704 (2.527-23.492) |
| 3.963 (1.371-11.455) |
|
Variables which had a P value < 0.05 in univariable analysis was included in the multivariable analysis.
Bold values indicate that the results were statistically significant.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis for postoperative progression.
| Variables | Recurrence multivariate analysis | Metastasis multivariate analysis | Death multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Post-op CA19-9 (u/ml):≤ 37 | 7.11 (1.23-40.90) |
| NA. | NA. | ||
| T stage: T1-T2 vs T3 | 4.37 (0.75-25.55) | 0.10 | NA. | NA. | ||
| Lymph node invasion: N0 | NA. | 5.01 (1.28-19.54) |
| 2.531 (0.78-8.18) | 0.12 | |
| Differentiation: High | NA. | 0.67 (0.20-2.27) | 0.52 | NA. | ||
| PoV E>M H-CTC (per 5ml): <3 | 1.22 (0.11-13.08) | 0.870 | NA. | NA. | ||
| PoV T-CTC (per 5ml): <14 | 3.84 (0.48-30.28) | 0.202 | NA. | NA. | ||
| PoV E-CTC (per 5ml): <5 | 0.58 (0.094-3.64) | 0.56 | NA. | NA. | ||
| PoV M-CTC (per 5ml): <1 | NA. | 6.795 (1.89-24.39) |
| 3.100 (1.03-9.27) |
| |
NA, no application.
Bold values indicate that the results were statistically significant.