Circulating tumor cells in metastatic colorectal cancer: Efficacy and feasibility of different enrichment methods

Königsberg, Robert; Gneist, Margit; Jahn-Kuch, Daniela; Pfeiler, Georg; Hager, G.; Hudec, Marcus; Dittrich, Christian; Zeillinger, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2010.01.003

Cited by 49 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…isolated from other cells by using immune-magnetic techniques that recognize speci c surface markers such as EpCAM. We used the MACS® system, that is one of these accurate methods [13,14]. e prevalence rate we detected in patients with CRC was consistent with data of previous studies, ranging from 29% to 36% [7,8,10].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

Circulating Tumor Cells Count Predicts Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients

Romiti¹,

Raffa²,

Rocco³

et al. 2014

JGLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & Aims: Data on the potential of circulating tumor cells (CTC) count in predicting overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal cancer are timely and worthy of interest. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of CTC count in both localized and metastatic colorectal cancer patients.Methods: Consecutive patients with histological diagnosis of colorectal cancer were enrolled. CTC count was performed, by using a quantitative immunofluorescence method, at baseline (T0) and 1 month following start of chemotherapy (T1). A CTC count <2 was considered negative, whilst a CTC level ≥2 was positive. Overall survival was calculated accordingly.Results: A total of 75 colorectal cancer patients were enrolled, including 54 stages I-III and 21 stage IV patients. Overall, 21 (28%) patients had a positive CTC count at baseline, and it was significantly associated with a worse prognosis as compared to a negative status (OS: 36.2 vs. 61.6 months; P = 0.002). CTC count remained positive after chemotherapy in 22.4% of the patients and it was an independent prognostic factor of OS (P = 0.03; Hazard Ratio: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.1-11.5).Conclusions: This study found that the presence of CTCs is associated with a reduced survival in colorectal cancer patients. Further studies aimed at testing such a predictive value in early stage colorectal cancer are awaited.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 63%

Circulating Tumor Cells Count Predicts Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients

Romiti¹,

Raffa²,

Rocco³

et al. 2014

JGLD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As an example of this label-dependent approach, the CellSearch platform has been extensively studied in the application to CTC detection in patients with CRC [22–27]. Other EpCAM-dependent methods that have been used to detect CTCs from patients with CRC include: Adna Test, which uses antibodies against EpCAM and MUC-1 conjugated to magnetic beads [28], the CTC-Chip, a microfluidic platform containing microposts coated against EpCAM [29], and magnetic-activated cell separation (MACS), another anti-EpCAM immunomagnetic enrichment method [30]. A main disadvantage of these platforms is their reliance on EpCAM expression on CTCs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enumeration and targeted analysis of KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in CTCs captured by a label-free platform: Comparison to ctDNA and tissue in metastatic colorectal cancer

Kidess-Sigal

Liu²,

Triboulet

et al. 2016

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) requires multimodal therapeutic approaches and need for monitoring tumor plasticity. Liquid biopsy biomarkers, including CTCs and ctDNA, hold promise for evaluating treatment response in real-time and guiding therapeutic modifications. From 15 patients with advanced CRC undergoing liver metastasectomy with curative intent, we collected 41 blood samples at different time points before and after surgery for CTC isolation and quantification using label-free Vortex technology. For mutational profiling, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA hotspot mutations were analyzed in CTCs and ctDNA from 23 samples, nine matched liver metastases and three primary tumor samples. Mutational patterns were compared. 80% of patient blood samples were positive for CTCs, using a healthy baseline value as threshold (0.4 CTCs/mL), and 81.4% of captured cells were EpCAM+ CTCs. At least one mutation was detected in 78% of our blood samples. Among 23 matched CTC and ctDNA samples, we found a concordance of 78.2% for KRAS, 73.9% for BRAF and 91.3% for PIK3CA mutations. In several cases, CTCs exhibited a mutation that was not detected in ctDNA, and vice versa. Complementary assessment of both CTCs and ctDNA appears advantageous to assess dynamic tumor profiles.

show abstract

“…Large differences in the detection rates of CTCs (30-100%) have been reported in breast cancer. [13][14][15] Besides the use of different technologies and patient populations, these discordant results could be due to different definition of CTCs. Even using the same technology, the application of different criteria for the definition of CTCs may result in different detection rates.Simplex kind of markers-based methods may miss different subpopulation of CTCs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%