4.4 Article

Circulating tumor cell detection: A direct comparison between negative and unbiased enrichment in lung cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 4882-4886

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6046

Keywords

circulating tumor cells; non-small-cell lung cancer; negative enrichment; unbiased enrichment; cluster of differentiation 45; cytokeratin; A549 cell line

Categories

Funding

  1. Colleges and Universities Graduate Student Scientific Research Innovation Project of Jiangsu Province, China [CXZZ12_0120]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), isolated as a 'liquid biopsy', may provide important diagnostic and prognostic information. Therefore, rapid, reliable and unbiased detection of CTCs are required for routine clinical analyses. It was demonstrated that negative enrichment, an epithelial marker-independent technique for isolating CTCs, exhibits a better efficiency in the detection of CTCs compared with positive enrichment techniques that only use specific anti-epithelial cell adhesion molecules. However, negative enrichment techniques incur significant cell loss during the isolation procedure, and as it is a method that uses only one type of antibody, it is inherently biased. The detection procedure and identification of cell types also relies on skilled and experienced technicians. In the present study, the detection sensitivity of using negative enrichment and a previously described unbiased detection method was compared. The results revealed that unbiased detection methods may efficiently detect > 90% of cancer cells in blood samples containing CTCs. By contrast, only 40-60% of CTCs were detected by negative enrichment. Additionally, CTCs were identified in > 65% of patients with stage I/II lung cancer. This simple yet efficient approach may achieve a high level of sensitivity. It demonstrates a potential for the large-scale clinical implementation of CTC-based diagnostic and prognostic strategies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available