4.8 Article

Inertial Focusing for Tumor Antigen-Dependent and -Independent Sorting of Rare Circulating Tumor Cells

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 179, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005616

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH P41 Biotechnology Resource Center
  2. NIH National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  3. Stand Up to Cancer
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  5. Prostate Cancer Foundation
  6. Charles Evans Foundation
  7. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program
  8. Mazzone-DF/HCC (Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center)
  9. Conquer Cancer Foundation
  10. Johnson Johnson

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are shed into the bloodstream from primary and metastatic tumor deposits. Their isolation and analysis hold great promise for the early detection of invasive cancer and the management of advanced disease, but technological hurdles have limited their broad clinical utility. We describe an inertial focusing-enhanced microfluidic CTC capture platform, termed CTC-iChip, that is capable of sorting rare CTCs from whole blood at 10(7) cells/s. Most importantly, the iChip is capable of isolating CTCs using strategies that are either dependent or independent of tumor membrane epitopes, and thus applicable to virtually all cancers. We specifically demonstrate the use of the iChip in an expanded set of both epithelial and nonepithelial cancers including lung, prostate, pancreas, breast, and melanoma. The sorting of CTCs as unfixed cells in solution allows for the application of high-quality clinically standardized morphological and immunohistochemical analyses, as well as RNA-based single-cell molecular characterization. The combination of an unbiased, broadly applicable, high-throughput, and automatable rare cell sorting technology with generally accepted molecular assays and cytology standards will enable the integration of CTC-based diagnostics into the clinical management of cancer.

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

4.8
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