4.7 Article

Circulating tumour cell detection: a direct comparison between the CellSearch System, the AdnaTest and CK-19/mammaglobin RT-PCR in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 276-284

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605472

Keywords

circulating tumour cells; breast cancer; CellSearch System; RT-PCR; AdnaTest

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The detection, enumeration and isolation of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) have considerable potential to influence the clinical management of patients with breast cancer. There is, however, substantial variability in the rates of positive samples using existing detection techniques. The lack of standardisation of technology hampers the implementation of CTC measurement in clinical routine practice. METHODS: This study was designed to directly compare three techniques for detecting CTCs in blood samples taken from 76 patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and from 20 healthy controls: the CellSearch CTC System, the AdnaTest Breast Cancer Select/Detect and a previously developed real-time qRT-PCR assay for the detection of CK-19 and mammaglobin transcripts. RESULTS: As a result, 36% of patients with MBC were positive by the CellSearch System, 22% by the AdnaTest, 26% using RT-PCR for CK-19 and 54% using RT-PCR for mammaglobin. Samples were significantly more likely to be positive for at least one mRNA marker using RT-PCR than using the CellSearch System (P=0.001) or the AdnaTest (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: We observed a substantial variation in the detection rates of CTCs in blood from breast cancer patients using three different techniques. A higher rate of positive samples was observed using a combined qRT-PCR approach for CK-19 and mammaglobin, which suggests that this is currently the most sensitive technique for detecting CTCs. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 276-284. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605472 www.bjcancer.com Published online 1 December 2009 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

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