TY - JOUR
T1 - Detection of circulating tumour cells in urothelial cancers and clinical correlations
T2 - Comparison of two methods
AU - Fina, Emanuela
AU - Necchi, Andrea
AU - Bottelli, Stefano
AU - Reduzzi, Carolina
AU - Pizzamiglio, Sara
AU - Iacona, Chiara
AU - Daidone, Maria Grazia
AU - Verderio, Paolo
AU - Cappelletti, Vera
PY - 2017/1/1
Y1 - 2017/1/1
N2 - Circulating tumour cells (CTC) are identified exploiting their protein/gene expression patterns or distinct size compared to blood cells. Data on CTC in bladder cancer (BC) are still scarce. We comparatively analyzed CTC enrichment by AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect (AT) and ScreenCell®Cyto (SC) kits, combined with identification by EPCAM,MUC1, and ERBB2 expression and by cytological criteria, respectively, in 19 nonmetastatic (M0) and 47 metastatic (M+) BC patients, at baseline (T0) and during treatment (T1). At T0, CTC positivity rates by AT were higher in M+ compared toM0 cases (57.4% versus 25%, p = 0.041). EPCAM was detected in 75% of CTC-positive samples by AT, showing increasing expression levels from T0 to T1 (median (interquartile range, IQR): 0.18 (0.07-0.42) versus 0.84 (0.33-1.84), p = 0.005) in M+ cases. Overall, CTC positivity by SC was around 80% regardless of clinical setting and time point of analysis, except for a lower occurrence at T1 in M0 cases. At T0, circulating tumour microemboli were more frequently (25% versus 8%) detected and more numerous in M+ compared to M0 patients.The approach used for CTC detection impacts the outcome of CTC studies. Further investigations are required to clarify the clinical validity of AT and SC in specific BC clinical contexts.
AB - Circulating tumour cells (CTC) are identified exploiting their protein/gene expression patterns or distinct size compared to blood cells. Data on CTC in bladder cancer (BC) are still scarce. We comparatively analyzed CTC enrichment by AdnaTest ProstateCancerSelect (AT) and ScreenCell®Cyto (SC) kits, combined with identification by EPCAM,MUC1, and ERBB2 expression and by cytological criteria, respectively, in 19 nonmetastatic (M0) and 47 metastatic (M+) BC patients, at baseline (T0) and during treatment (T1). At T0, CTC positivity rates by AT were higher in M+ compared toM0 cases (57.4% versus 25%, p = 0.041). EPCAM was detected in 75% of CTC-positive samples by AT, showing increasing expression levels from T0 to T1 (median (interquartile range, IQR): 0.18 (0.07-0.42) versus 0.84 (0.33-1.84), p = 0.005) in M+ cases. Overall, CTC positivity by SC was around 80% regardless of clinical setting and time point of analysis, except for a lower occurrence at T1 in M0 cases. At T0, circulating tumour microemboli were more frequently (25% versus 8%) detected and more numerous in M+ compared to M0 patients.The approach used for CTC detection impacts the outcome of CTC studies. Further investigations are required to clarify the clinical validity of AT and SC in specific BC clinical contexts.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016111289&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016111289&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2017/3414910
DO - 10.1155/2017/3414910
M3 - Article
C2 - 28321147
AN - SCOPUS:85016111289
VL - 2017
JO - Disease Markers
JF - Disease Markers
SN - 0278-0240
M1 - 3414910
ER -