4.6 Article

Frequency of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC) in Patients with Brain Metastases: Implications as a Risk Assessment Marker in Oligo-Metastatic Disease

期刊

CANCERS
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers10120527

关键词

lung cancer; brain metastasis; circulating tumor cell (CTC); survival; oligo-metastasis; EpCAM

类别

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking from the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) [115749]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forty percent of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients develop brain metastases, resulting in a dismal prognosis. However, patients in an oligo-metastatic brain disease setting seem to have better outcomes. Here, we investigate the possibility of using circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as biomarkers to differentiate oligo-metastatic patients for better risk assessment. Using the CellSearch (R) system, few CTCs were detected among NSCLC patients with brain metastases (n = 52, 12.5% >= two and 8.9% >= five CTC/7.5 mL blood) and especially oligo-metastatic brain patients (n = 34, 5.9%, and 2.9%). Still, thresholds of both >= two and >= five CTCs were independent prognostic indicators for shorter overall survival time among all of the NSCLC patients (n = 90, two CTC >= HR: 1.629, p = 0.024, 95% CI: 1.137-6.465 and five CTC >= HR: 2.846, p = 0.0304, CI: 1.104-7.339), as well as among patients with brain metastases (two CTC >= HR: 4.694, p = 0.004, CI: 1.650-13.354, and five CTC >= HR: 4.963, p = 0.003, CI: 1.752-14.061). Also, oligo-brain NSCLC metastatic patients with CTCs had a very poor prognosis (p = 0.019). Similarly, in other tumor entities, only 9.6% of patients with brain metastases (n = 52) had detectable CTCs. Our data indicate that although patients with brain metastases more seldom harbor CTCs, they are still predictive for overall survival, and CTCs might be a useful biomarker to identify oligo-metastatic NSCLC patients who might benefit from a more intense therapy.

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