4.5 Article

Prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in Egyptian non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A comparative study for four different techniques of detection (Flowcytometry, CellSearch, Quantitative Real-time PCR and Cytomorphology)

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
卷 106, 期 -, 页码 90-101

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2018.12.006

关键词

Circulating tumor cells count; mRNA markers; Non-metastatic colorectal cancer; Early detection; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We assessed CTCs counts in NMCRC patients using four different techniques. Methods: CTCs were detected in 63 NMCRC patients, 40 benign bowel diseases (BBD) and 40 normal controls (NC) using, flow-cytometry (FCM), CellSearch (CS), cytomorphology and quantitative real time (qPCR) for CK19, MUC1, CD44, CD133, ALDH1 expression.Results were correlated to progression free (PFS) and overall (OS). Results: Positive CTCs (>= 4 cells /7.5 mL blood) were detected in 50.8% (32/63) NMCRC by FCM and 7.5% (3/ 40) BBD (p < .001). CTCs were detected in 34/63 (54%) NMCRC, 4/40 (10%) BBD (p < .001) by CS. CK19, MUC1, CD44, CD133 and ALDH1 were expressed in 35 (55.6%), 29 (46.0%), 28 (44.4%), 26 (41.3%) and 25 (41.3%) cases of NMCRC. In BBD 4/40 (10%) cases expressed CK19, MUC1 and CD44, while 2/40 (5%) expressed CD133. Cytomorphology showed the lowest sensitivity (47.6%) and specificity (90%) for CTCs detection. The combined use of FCM or CS with CTCs-mRNA markers improved the sensitivity and specificity to 68.3%, and 95.0%; respectively. Positive CTCs and mRNA markers expression were significantly associated with shorter 5-yr PFS and OS. In multivariate analysis, CTCs mRNA markers were independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS. Conclusions: E numeration of CTCs by FCM and RNA expression for specific colon cancer markers are comparable to CS regarding sensitivity and specificity. CTCs also represent novel therapeutic targets for NMCRC cases.

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

4.5
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