4.6 Article

RNA-Based CTC Analysis Provides Prognostic Information in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030513

Keywords

liquid biopsy; circulating tumor cells; gene expression; metastatic breast cancer; multiplex RT-qPCR; prognostic marker

Funding

  1. European Union
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCHCREATE-INNOVATE [T1RCI-02935]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the prognostic significance of gene expression in CTCs of 46 MBC patients, showing that combined gene expression analysis can provide prognostic information for MBC.
In metastatic breast cancer (MBC) the molecular characterization of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) provides a unique tool to understand metastasis-biology and therapy-resistance. We evaluated the prognostic significance of gene expression in EpCAM((+)) CTCs in 46 MBC patients based on a long follow-up. We selected a panel consisting of stem cell markers (CD24, CD44, ALDH1), the mesenchymal marker TWIST1, receptors (ESR1, PGR, HER2, EGFR) and the epithelial marker CK-19. Singleplex RT-qPCR was used for TWIST1 and CK-19 and multiplex RT-qPCR for stem cell markers and receptors. A group of 19 healthy donors (HD) was used as control. Univariate (p = 0.001) and multivariate analysis (p = 0.002) revealed the prognostic value of combined gene expression of CK-19(+), CD44(high)/CD24(low), ALDH1(high)/CD24(low) and HER2 over-expression for overall survival (OS). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS were significantly different in patients positive for CK-19 (p = 0.028), CD44(high)/CD24(low) (p = 0.002), ALDH1(high)/CD24(low) (p = 0.007) and HER2-positive (p = 0.022). Our results indicate that combined gene expression analysis in EpCAM((+)) CTCs provides prognostic information in MBC.

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