4.7 Article

Circulating Tumor Cells: A Useful Predictor of Treatment Efficacy in Metastatic Breast Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 31, 页码 5153-5159

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.6664

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Veridex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Five or more circulating tumor cells (CTCs) per 7.5 mL of blood predicts for poorer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We conducted a prospective study to demonstrate that CTC results correlate strongly with radiographic disease progression at the time of and in advance of imaging. Patients and Methods Serial CTC levels were obtained in patients starting a new treatment regimen for progressive, radiographically measurable MBC. Peripheral blood was collected for CTC enumeration at baseline and at 3- to 4-week intervals. Clinical outcomes were based on radiographic studies performed in 9- to 12-week intervals. Results Sixty-eight patients were evaluable for the CTC-imaging correlations, and 74 patients were evaluable for the PFS analysis. Median follow-up was 13.3 months. A statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between CTC levels and radiographic disease progression in patients receiving chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. This correlation applied to CTC results obtained at the time of imaging (odds ratio [OR], 6.3), 3 to 5 weeks before imaging (OR, 3.1), and 7 to 9 weeks before imaging (OR, 4.9). Results from analyses stratified by type of therapy remained statistically significant. Shorter PFS was observed for patients with five or more CTCs at 3 to 5 weeks and at 7 to 9 weeks after the start of treatment. Conclusion We provide, to our knowledge, the first evidence of a strong correlation between CTC results and radiographic disease progression in patients receiving chemotherapy or endocrine therapy for MBC. These findings support the role of CTC enumeration as an adjunct to standard methods of monitoring disease status in MBC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据