4.4 Article

Circulating Tumor Cell Phenotype Indicates Poor Survival and Recurrence After Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 63, Issue 9, Pages 2373-2380

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5124-2

Keywords

CTC; EMT; Liver cancer; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Projects of China [2013B02200069, 2017A020215132]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Circulating tumors cells (CTCs) may be a promising prognostic marker for patients with malignant tumors. However, there are few reports regarding its value for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Aims To investigate CTCs with epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes as a potential prognostic biomarker for HCC patients. Methods Peripheral blood samples were obtained from 165 HCC patients before radical surgery. CTCs were isolated via the CanPatrol CTC enrichment technique and classified using epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers. The relationship of CTC phenotype with clinicopathological factors and HCC recurrence in patients was analyzed. Results CTC-positive status (count >= 2/5 mL) was found in 70.9% of the 165 HCC patients. Increased CTC number was more common in patients with higher AFP levels, multiple tumors, advanced TNM and BCLC staging, and presence of embolus or microembolus (P < 0.05). CTCs heterogeneity was noted using EMT markers. Mesenchymal CTCs were significantly correlated with high AFP levels, multiple tumors, advanced TNM and BCLC stage, presence of embolus or microembolus, and earlier recurrence (P < 0.05). The presence of mesenchymal CTCs predicted the shortest relapse-free survival, followed by mixed phenotypic CTCs, and then epithelial CTCs (P < 0.001). Conclusion CTC phenotype may serve as a prognostic indicator for HCC patients. CTCs assessment should include phenotypic identification tailored to characterize cells based on epithelial and mesenchymal markers.

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