4.2 Article

Assessment of Circulating Tumor Cells as a Predictive Biomarker of Histology in Women With Suspected Ovarian Cancer

期刊

LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 134-139

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/labmed/lmx084

关键词

circulating tumor cells; biomarkers; ovarian cancer; ovarian mass; pelvic mass; Krukenberg tumors

资金

  1. NIH Clinical and Translational Science KL2 Scholar Award [8UL1TR000114]
  2. Litman Family Fund for Cancer Research
  3. University of Minnesota Deborah E. Powell Center for Women's Health Interdisciplinary Seed Grant [PCWH-2013-002]
  4. Minnesota Masonic Charities
  5. Masonic Cancer Center [P30 CA77598]
  6. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota
  7. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K12HD055887] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR002494] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The clinical assessment of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a blood-based biomarker is FDA-approved for use in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The objective of this prospective clinical study was to determine whether pretreatment CTCs are a useful diagnostic biomarker in women with complex pelvic masses. Methods: Whole blood was collected from 49 women with newly diagnosed pelvic masses. The presence of CTCs was compared between women with and without ovarian cancer histopathologic diagnosis after surgery using a Chi-squared test. Results: CTCs were absent in those with benign disease (0/14), present in 17% (5/29) of patients with a histologic diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma, and present in 80% (4/5) of patients with ovarian metastases from other cancers (P = 0.001). All 5 women with ovarian cancer who had CTCs present presented stage III or IV of the disease (P = 0.13). Conclusions: CTCs were more prevalent in patients with metastases to the ovary than in primary ovarian 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

4.2
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