4.6 Article

Circulating Tumor Cells in Right- and Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11081042

关键词

colorectal cancer; sidedness; circulating tumor cells; epithelial-mesenchymal transition; prognosis; CellSearch (R); ScreenCell (R)

类别

资金

  1. Ar.Ger.On onlus
  2. ERA-NET TRANSCAN grant
  3. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) Investigator Grant [20744]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular alterations are not randomly distributed in colorectal cancer (CRC), but rather clustered on the basis of primary tumor location underlying the importance of colorectal cancer sidedness. We aimed to investigate whether circulating tumor cells (CTC) characterization might help clarify how different the patterns of dissemination might be relative to the behavior of left- (LCC) compared to right-sided (RCC) cancers. We retrospectively analyzed patients with metastatic CRC who had undergone standard baseline CTC evaluation before starting any first-line systemic treatment. Enumeration of CTC in left- and right-sided tumors were compared. The highest prognostic impact was exerted by CTC in left-sided primary cancer patients, even though the lowest median number of cells was detected in this subgroup of patients. CTC exhibit phenotypic heterogeneity, with a predominant mesenchymal phenotype found in CTC from distal compared to proximal primary tumors. Most CTC in RCC patients exhibited an apoptotic pattern. CTC in left-sided colon cancer patients exhibit a predominant mesenchymal phenotype. This might imply a substantial difference in the biology of proximal and distal cancers, associated with different patterns of tumor cells dissemination. The poor prognosis of right-sided CRC is not determined by the hematogenous dissemination of tumor cells, which appears to be predominantly a passive shedding of non-viable cells. Conversely, the subgroup of poor-prognosis left-sided CRC is reliably identified by the presence of mesenchymal CTC.

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