4.2 Article

Evaluation of Isolation Methods for Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs)

Journal

CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 40, Issue 3-4, Pages 411-419

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000452556

Keywords

CTCs; Cell Search; ISET; CD45-negative selection; Breast Cancer; EpCAM-positive selection

Funding

  1. Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)
  2. Greek General Secretary of Research and Technology [Oncoseed PN 3175]
  3. International Scientific Partnership Program ISPP at King Saud University [009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Detection of CTCs is a poor prognostic factor for many cancer types; however, their very low frequency represents an obstacle for their detection. The objective of the current study was to compare the performance of commonly used methods for CTCs isolation. Methods: The evaluated methods using spiking experiments of MCF7, SKBR3 and MDA MB-231 breast cancer cell lines were (i) ficoll density gradient separation (DGS), (ii) red blood cell lysis (Erythrolysis) isolation, (iii) positive immunomagnetic selection (EpCAM Dynal beads), (iv) two different negative immunomagnetic separation systems (Dynal vs Miltenyi CD4S beads) as well as (v) the Cell Search platform and (vi) the ISET system. Results: The recovery rates of Erythrolysis and DGS were 39% and 24%, respectively. Magnetic isolations are ranked from the worse to the best recovery rate as follows:, Myltenyi-anti-CD45 microbeads (24%); Dynal anti-EpCAM beads (75%); Dynabeads-anti-CD45 (97%). CTCs isolation from blood samples using the CellSearch and ISET systems revealed that the recovery rate for Cell Search and ISET was 52% and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: Dynal-anti-CD45 beads have the best recovery rate compared to other magnetic methods. Furthermore the recovery rate of IS ET was higher compared to Cell Search, especially for the more aggressive MDA-MB 231 cell line. (C) 2016 The Author(s) Published by S Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available