4.7 Article

Flow cytometry in the detection of circulating tumor cells in neoplastic effusions

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 552, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117651

关键词

Flow cytometry; Cytology; Circulating tumor cells; EpCAM; Neoplasms; Body fluids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow cytometry improves the detection of epithelial cancer cells in peritoneal and pleural fluids compared to conventional cytology. Due to similar speciflcity and higher sensitivity, flow cytometry offers a promising alternative to cytology for patient screening.
Purpose: Despite its limitations, the cytology of body fluids is widely used in diagnosing neoplastic cells. Flow cytometry detects and identifles individual cells, enabling the detection of circulating tumor cells and facilitating diagnosis. This study compared the diagnostic utility of flow cytometry and cytology for detecting cancer cells in peritoneal and pleural fluids.Methodology: We used flow cytometry and cytology to examine 119 pleural and peritoneal effusions received for routine screening. Antibodies against clusters of differentiation 45 (CD45), 14 (CD14), and Epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) were used to detect malignant cells. Based on combined clinical and diagnostic information, 37 fluid specimens were malignant, and 77 were benign.Results: Flow cytometry correctly identifled 34 cancers, while cytology identifled 26 cancers (sensitivity 91.89 % vs. 70.27, respectively). Both methods had equal speciflcity (98.7 %). At a cut-off of > 0.29 % EpCAM(+) cells to all cells in the samples, flow cytometry accurately detected cancer cells, achieving 89.2 % sensitivity, 90.9 % speciflcity, and an AUC of 0.959 (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Flow cytometry improves the detection of epithelial cancer cells in peritoneal and pleural fluids compared to conventional cytology. Due to similar speciflcity and higher sensitivity, flow cytometry offers a promising alternative to cytology for patient screening.

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