4.6 Article

Molecular profiling of circulating tumor cells predicts clinical outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

ORAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.104558

Keywords

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs); Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC); MET; CD274

Funding

  1. KAKENHI [15K10742, 17K11374]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K11374, 15K10742] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The relationship between the molecular profiling of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and clinical factors is a challenge. In this study, we performed molecular detection and characterization of CTCs in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Materials and methods: CTCs captured by microfilter were analyzed for the expression of multiple epithelial markers (EPCAM, MET, KRT19, and EGFR) by RT-qPCR. The CTCs-positive samples were further analyzed for the expression of 10 genes (PIK3CA, CCND1, SNAI1, VIM, CD44, NANOG, ALDHIAI, CD47, CD274, and PDCDILG2). Finally, we analyzed whether the molecular profiling of CTCs was associated with clinical factors. Results: Twenty-eight (63.6%) of the 44 HNSCC patients were positive for at least one epithelial-related gene. CTC-positivity was significantly correlated with treatment resistance (p = 0.0363), locoregional recurrence (p = 0.0151), and a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.0107). Moreover, the expression of MET in CTCs was associated with a shorter PFS (p = 0.0426). Notably, patients with CD274-positive CTC showed prolonged PFS (p = 0.0346) and overall survival (p = 0.0378) compared to those with CD274-negative CTC. Conclusion: Our results suggest that molecular profiling characterized by the gene expression of CTCs influences clinical factors in patients with HNSCC.

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