4.7 Article

Circulating tumour cells: the evolving concept and the inadequacy of their enrichment by EpCAM-based methodology for basic and clinical cancer research

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1506-1516

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu018

Keywords

circulating tumour cells; circulating epithelial tumour cells; circulating EMT+ tumour cells; circulating hybrid tumour cells; circulating irreversible EMT+ tumour cells; circulating cancer stem cells

Categories

Funding

  1. Cancer Council of South Australia [APP1029851]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Increasing evidence suggests that circulating tumour cells (CTCs) are responsible for metastatic relapse and this has fuelled interest in their detection and quantification. Although numerous methods have been developed for the enrichment and detection of CTCs, none has yet reached the 'gold' standard. Since epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM)-based enrichment of CTCs offers several advantages, it is one of the most commonly used and has been adapted for high-throughput technology. However, emerging evidence suggests that CTCs are highly heterogeneous: they consist of epithelial tumour cells, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) cells, hybrid (epithelial/EMT+) tumour cells, irreversible EMT+ tumour cells, and circulating tumour stem cells (CTSCs). The EpCAM-based approach does not detect CTCs expressing low levels of EpCAM and non-epithelial phenotypes such as CTSCs and those that have undergone EMT and no longer express EpCAM. Thus, the approach may lead to underestimation of the significance of CTCs, in general, and CTSCs and EMT+ tumour cells, in particular, in cancer dissemination. Here, we provide a critical review of research literature on the evolving concept of CTCs and the inadequacy of their enrichment by EpCAM-based technology for basic and clinical cancer research. The review also outlines future perspectives in the field.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available