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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |