Cargando…

Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients

The isolation and analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTC) has the potential to provide minimally invasive diagnostic, prognostic and predictive information. Widespread clinical implementation of CTC analysis has been hampered by a lack of comparative investigation between different analytic method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Drucker, Arik, Teh, Evelyn M., Kostyleva, Ripsik, Rayson, Daniel, Douglas, Susan, Pinto, Devanand M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32790691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237308
_version_ 1783570601497067520
author Drucker, Arik
Teh, Evelyn M.
Kostyleva, Ripsik
Rayson, Daniel
Douglas, Susan
Pinto, Devanand M.
author_facet Drucker, Arik
Teh, Evelyn M.
Kostyleva, Ripsik
Rayson, Daniel
Douglas, Susan
Pinto, Devanand M.
author_sort Drucker, Arik
collection PubMed
description The isolation and analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTC) has the potential to provide minimally invasive diagnostic, prognostic and predictive information. Widespread clinical implementation of CTC analysis has been hampered by a lack of comparative investigation between different analytic methodologies in clinically relevant settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate four different CTC isolation techniques–those that rely on surface antigen expression (EpCAM or CD45 using DynaBeads(®) or EasySep™ systems) or the biophysical properties (RosetteSep™ or ScreenCell(®)) of CTCs. These were evaluated using cultured cells in order to calculate isolation efficiency at various levels including; inter-assay and inter-operator variability, protocol complexity and turn-around time. All four techniques were adequate at levels above 100 cells/mL which is commonly used for the evaluation of new isolation techniques. Only the RosetteSep™ and ScreenCell(®) techniques were found to provide adequate sensitivity at a level of 10 cells/mL. These techniques were then applied to the isolation and analysis of circulating tumor cells blood drawn from metastatic breast cancer patients where CTCs were detected in 54% (15/28) of MBC patients using the RosetteSep™ and 75% (6/8) with ScreenCell(®). Overall, the ScreenCell(®) method had better sensitivity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7425969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74259692020-08-20 Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients Drucker, Arik Teh, Evelyn M. Kostyleva, Ripsik Rayson, Daniel Douglas, Susan Pinto, Devanand M. PLoS One Research Article The isolation and analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTC) has the potential to provide minimally invasive diagnostic, prognostic and predictive information. Widespread clinical implementation of CTC analysis has been hampered by a lack of comparative investigation between different analytic methodologies in clinically relevant settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate four different CTC isolation techniques–those that rely on surface antigen expression (EpCAM or CD45 using DynaBeads(®) or EasySep™ systems) or the biophysical properties (RosetteSep™ or ScreenCell(®)) of CTCs. These were evaluated using cultured cells in order to calculate isolation efficiency at various levels including; inter-assay and inter-operator variability, protocol complexity and turn-around time. All four techniques were adequate at levels above 100 cells/mL which is commonly used for the evaluation of new isolation techniques. Only the RosetteSep™ and ScreenCell(®) techniques were found to provide adequate sensitivity at a level of 10 cells/mL. These techniques were then applied to the isolation and analysis of circulating tumor cells blood drawn from metastatic breast cancer patients where CTCs were detected in 54% (15/28) of MBC patients using the RosetteSep™ and 75% (6/8) with ScreenCell(®). Overall, the ScreenCell(®) method had better sensitivity. Public Library of Science 2020-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7425969/ /pubmed/32790691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237308 Text en © 2020 Drucker et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Drucker, Arik
Teh, Evelyn M.
Kostyleva, Ripsik
Rayson, Daniel
Douglas, Susan
Pinto, Devanand M.
Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title_full Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title_fullStr Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title_short Comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
title_sort comparative performance of different methods for circulating tumor cell enrichment in metastatic breast cancer patients
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7425969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32790691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237308
work_keys_str_mv AT druckerarik comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients
AT tehevelynm comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients
AT kostylevaripsik comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients
AT raysondaniel comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients
AT douglassusan comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients
AT pintodevanandm comparativeperformanceofdifferentmethodsforcirculatingtumorcellenrichmentinmetastaticbreastcancerpatients