4.6 Article

Clinical utility of a circulating tumor cell assay in Merkel cell carcinoma

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.051

关键词

biomarker; circulating tumor cells; dot-like cytokeratin; Merkel cell carcinoma; neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin; prognosis

资金

  1. American Cancer Society [RSG-08-115-01-CCE]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K24-CA139052]
  3. NIH [R01-CA162522-01]
  4. David and Rosalind Bloom Endowment for Merkel Cell Carcinoma Research
  5. Michael Piepkorn Endowment Fund
  6. University of Washington Merkel Cell Carcinoma Patient Gift Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Quantitation of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has utility in managing breast, colon, and prostate carcinomas. Objective: We sought to determine whether a commercially available CTC assay provides prognostic information in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), insight into treatment responses, or both. Methods: We analyzed CTCs in 52 specimens from 34 patients with MCC. Results: The presence of CTCs correlated with extent of disease at blood draw (P = .004). Among 15 patients with regional nodal disease, CTC-negative patients had 80% disease-specific survival at 2 years after the test, versus 29% for CTC-positive patients (P = .015). Among the entire cohort, those without CTCs had 72% MCC-specific survival whereas CTC-positive patients had 25% survival (n = 34, median follow-up 19 months, P = .0003). Fifty seven percent of patients with MCC had a cytokeratin dot visible in 20% or more of CTCs, a feature that was absent among CTCs from other carcinomas (0 of 13 cases). Limitations: CTC assay was performed at variable times after diagnosis and heterogeneity in extent of disease affects interpretability of the data. Conclusion: CTC detection in MCC is feasible and appears to add prognostic information, particularly in patients with regional nodal disease. It may also assist clinical management in certain situations, including differentiating metastatic MCC cells from those of other carcinomas.

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

4.6
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