4.6 Article

Detection and prognostic relevance of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) in Asian breast cancers using a label-free microfluidic platform

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221305

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We aimed to study the prevalence of CTCs in breast cancer (BC) patients undergoing neoadjuvant or palliative therapy with a label-free microfluidic platform (ClearCell FX), and its prognostic relevance in metastatic BC (mBC). Materials and methods Peripheral blood samples were collected from 108 BC patients before starting a new line of treatment (baseline), majority of whom had mBC (76/108; 70.4%). CTCs were retrieved by dean flow fractionation that enriched for larger cells, and enumerated using immunofluorescence-based staining. Progression-free survival (PFS) in mBC patients was analysed using Kaplan-Meier method; cox proportional hazard models were used for univariable and multivariable analyses. Results The detection rate of CTCs before starting a new line of treatment was 75.9% (n = 108; median: 8 CTCs/7.5 ml blood) at a cut off of >= 2 CTCs. PFS was inferior for mBC patients with baseline CTC count >= 5 CTCs/7.5 ml blood vs. those with <5 CTCs/7.5 ml blood (median PFS: 4.3 vs. 7.0 months; p-value: 0.037). The prognostic relevance of CTCs was most significant in patients with HER2(-) mBC (median PFS: 4.1 vs. 8.3 months; p-value: 0.032), luminal (HR+HER2-) subtype (median PFS: 4.2 vs. 8.3 months; p-value: 0.048), and patients who had one or more prior treatments (median PFS: 4.2 vs. 7.0 months; p-value: 0.02). On multivariable analysis, baseline CTC level (hazard ratio (HR): 1.84, p-value: 0.02) and pre-treatment status (HR: 1.87, p-value: 0.05) were independent predictors of PFS. Conclusions This work demonstrates the prognostic significance of CTCs in mBC detected using a label-free size-based enrichment platform.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available