| Literature DB >> 36212389 |
Jiazhang Wei1,2,3, Weiming Deng1, Jingjin Weng1, Min Li1, Guiping Lan1, Xiang Li1, Linsong Ye1, Yongli Wang1, Fei Liu4, Huashuang Ou1, Yunzhong Wei1, Wenlin Huang1, Sifang Xie1, Guohu Dong1, Shenhong Qu1,2.
Abstract
Background: Liquid biopsy facilitates the enrichment and isolation of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in various human cancers, including nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Characterizing CTCs allows observation of the evolutionary process of single tumor cells undergoing blood-borne dissemination, such as epithelial-mesenchymal transition. However, the prognostic value of phenotypic classification of CTCs in predicting the clinical outcomes of NPC remains poorly understood. Patients and methods: A total of 92 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the present study. The CanPatrol™ CTC technology platform was employed to isolate CTCs, and an RNA in situ hybridization-based system was used for phenotypic classification. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for univariate survival analysis, and the log-rank test was performed for between-group comparisons of the survival curves.Entities:
Keywords: circulating tumor cells; epithelial-mesenchymal transition; metastasis; nasopharyngeal carcinoma; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36212389 PMCID: PMC9532596 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.988458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Correlation between total circulating tumor cell (CTC) numbers and clinical characteristics. (A) Comparison of the total CTC numbers among different T stages (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance). The CTC counts are presented as vertical boxes with error bars indicating the median, 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles. (B) Comparison of the total CTC numbers among different N stages (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance). (C) Comparison of the total CTC numbers between Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA-negative and -positive groups (Mann–Whitney U test). (D) Correlation between the total CTC numbers and tumor sizes (Pearson correlation analysis).
Figure 2RNA in situ hybridization-based phenotypic classification of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and plasma Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA level in each group. (A) A representative phenotypic classification of CTCs from a patient (case 1#) with nasopharyngeal carcinoma is shown. Cells stained with epithelial (red fluorescent probe) and mesenchymal (green fluorescent probe) markers were classified as epithelial and mesenchymal CTCs, respectively. Cells stained with both red and green fluorescent probes were classified as epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M) hybrid CTCs. Nine CTCs were detected in case 1, of which 66.7% (6/9) were E/M hybrid CTCs. The patient was assigned to the E/M hybrid-predominant group for follow-up. (B) Six CTCs were detected in another patient (case 7#), of which 16.7% (1/6) were E/M hybrid CTCs. The patient was assigned to the non-E/M hybrid-predominant group. The cells were analyzed under a fluorescence microscope with a 100× oil objective. (C) The various epithelial and mesenchymal makers are indicated with red and green fluorescent probes, respectively. (D) Comparison of the plasma EBV DNA level between the E/M hybrid-predominant and non-E/M hybrid-predominant groups.
Figure 3Numbers and distributions of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) before and after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). (A) The numbers and distributions of the CTCs detected from each patient before CCRT are shown as tricolored bars. The proportions of phenotypically classified CTC subpopulations determined before CCRT are shown as a pie plot in the right panel. (B) Detection of CTCs at the end of CCRT. (C) Detection of CTCs at 3 months after CCRT. E/M, epithelial/mesenchymal.
Figure 4Variations in the numbers of total circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and each subpopulation before and after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). (A) Comparison of the total CTC numbers detected before CCRT, at the end of CCRT, and 3 months after CCRT. (B) Comparison of the numbers of epithelial CTCs detected at the three predesignated time points. (C) Comparison of the numbers of epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M) hybrid CTCs detected at the three predesignated time points. (D) Comparison of the numbers of mesenchymal CTCs detected at the three predesignated time points. The paired-sample Wilcoxon test was performed for between-group comparisons of CTC numbers.
Baseline characteristics.
| E/M hybrid-predominant (n = 34) | Non-E/M hybrid- predominant (n = 25) | χ2 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||
| Median (range) | 46 (17–63) | 46 (29–71) | ||
| ≦45 | 15 (44.1%) | 10 (40.0%) | 0.100 | 0.752 |
| >45 | 19 (55.9%) | 15 (60.0%) | ||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 30 (88.2%) | 19 (76.0%) | 0.786 | 0.375 |
| Female | 4 (11.8%) | 6 (24.0%) | ||
| Ethnicity | ||||
| Asian | 34 (100%) | 25 (100%) | ||
| Histology | ||||
| Non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma | 34 (100%) | 25 (100%) | ||
| T category | ||||
| T1-2 | 4 (11.8%) | 8 (32.0%) | 2.499 | 0.114 |
| T3-4 | 30 (88.2%) | 17 (68.0%) | ||
| N category | ||||
| N0-1 | 21 (61.8%) | 14 (56.0%) | 0.198 | 0.656 |
| N2-3 | 13 (38.2%) | 11 (44.0%) | ||
| Stage | ||||
| III | 18 (52.9%) | 18 (72.0%) | 2.200 | 0.138 |
| IV | 16 (47.1%) | 7 (28.0%) | ||
| Pretreatment EBV DNA test | ||||
| Positive | 17 (50.0%) | 14 (56.0%) | 0.208 | 0.648 |
| Negative | 17 (50.0%) | 11 (44.0%) | ||
Data are presented as n (%) or median (range). χ2 was calculated by chi-square test with or without continuous calibration, or with Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 5Long-term clinical outcomes among patients with progressive nasopharyngeal carcinoma. (A) Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) among patients with epithelial/mesenchymal (E/M) hybrid-predominant or non-E/M hybrid-predominant distribution of circulating tumor cells (CTCs). (B) Kaplan–Meier analysis of disease-free survival (DFS). (C) Kaplan–Meier analysis of local relapse-free survival (LRFS). (D) Kaplan–Meier analysis of distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). The log-rank test was performed for between-group comparisons of survival curves.