Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
J Clin Lab Anal. 2022 Jul;36(7):e24524. doi: 10.1002/jcla.24524. Epub 2022 Jun 3.
This study compared whole blood dilution versus density gradient centrifugation for pre-processing blood samples prior to circulating tumor cell (CTC) capture on the efficiency of CTC separation by size-based isolation.
Whole blood from a healthy volunteer spiked with SKBR3 cells was used to optimize the whole blood dilution protocol for sample volume, dilution ratio, and paraformaldehyde (PFA) concentration. Whole blood from healthy volunteers spiked with SKBR3, A549, or PC3 cells, and whole blood from patients with advanced gastric, esophageal, or liver cancer, was used to compare pre-processing by the optimal whole blood dilution protocol with density-gradient centrifugation. All statistical evaluations were performed using Student t test of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 17.0).
In blood samples from healthy volunteers, spiked SKBR3 cell recovery rates were highest in 5 ml of whole blood, diluted with 2.5 ml buffer, and fixed with 0.2% PFA, and spiked SKBR3, A549, and PC3 cell recovery rates from 5 ml whole blood were significantly greater when using the optimized whole blood dilution protocol (87.67% ± 1.76%, 79.50% ± 0.50% and 71.83% ± 1.04%, respectively) compared to density-gradient centrifugation (46.83 ± 1.76%, 37.00 ± 1.50% and 41.00 ± 1.50%, respectively).
本研究比较了全血稀释与密度梯度离心两种方法,用于预处理血液样本,以提高基于大小的分离方法对循环肿瘤细胞(CTC)的分离效率。
使用含有 SKBR3 细胞的健康志愿者全血,优化全血稀释方案,包括样本体积、稀释比例和多聚甲醛(PFA)浓度。使用健康志愿者全血(含 SKBR3、A549 或 PC3 细胞)和晚期胃癌、食管癌或肝癌患者全血,比较最佳全血稀释方案与密度梯度离心预处理的效果。所有统计评估均采用 SPSS 版本 17.0 的统计软件包进行 Student t 检验。
在健康志愿者的血液样本中,5ml 全血稀释 2.5ml 缓冲液并用 0.2% PFA 固定时,SKBR3 细胞的回收率最高;当使用优化的全血稀释方案时,SKBR3、A549 和 PC3 细胞的回收率显著提高(87.67%±1.76%、79.50%±0.50%和 71.83%±1.04%),与密度梯度离心(46.83%±1.76%、37.00%±1.50%和 41.00%±1.50%)相比。