4.7 Review

Sampling circulating tumor cells for clinical benefits: how frequent?

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-015-0174-9

Keywords

Circulating tumor cells; Therapeutic monitoring; Cancer; Sampling interval; Monitoring frequency

Funding

  1. Exploit Technologies (EPTL) A*STAR Singapore [EPTL/10-S10COT-0019]
  2. A*STAR Science and Engineering Research Council Public Service Fund (SERC PSF) [1121202021]
  3. National University of Singapore Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine Bridging Grant for Established Researchers [R179-000-048-733]
  4. Singapore Cancer Society Research Grant [NR11SCS134OM]
  5. Singapore BMRC SERC PSF grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cells shed from tumors or metastatic sites and are a potential biomarker for cancer diagnosis, management, and prognostication. The majority of current studies use single or infrequent CTC sampling points. This strategy assumes that changes in CTC number, as well as phenotypic and molecular characteristics, are gradual with time. In reality, little is known today about the actual kinetics of CTC dissemination and phenotypic and molecular changes in the blood of cancer patients. Herein, we show, using clinical case studies and hypothetical simulation models, how sub-optimal CTC sampling may result in misleading observations with clinical consequences, by missing out on significant CTC spikes that occur in between sampling times. Initial studies using highly frequent CTC sampling are necessary to understand the dynamics of CTC dissemination and phenotypic and molecular changes in the blood of cancer patients. Such an improved understanding will enable an optimal, study-specific sampling frequency to be assigned to individual research studies and clinical trials and better inform practical clinical decisions on cancer management strategies for patient benefits.

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