Rzhevskiy Alexey S, Sagitova Guzel R, Karashaeva Tamilla A, Morozov Andrey O, Fatyanova Anastasia S, Kazantseva Vlada V, Joosse Simon A, Zvyagin Andrei V, Warkini Majid Ebrahimi
Institute of Molecular Theranostics, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia; Faculty of Computer Science, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 101000, Russia.
Institute of Molecular Theranostics, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2025 Feb;206:104579. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104579. Epub 2024 Nov 28.
The application of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as diagnostic and prognostic markers in oncology is gaining increasing importance in clinical practice. Currently, various methods exist for detecting CTCs in patients' biological fluids. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of different techniques for isolating and detecting CTCs from blood, against the FDA-cleared CellSearch® technology, in breast cancer patients. We performed a systematic literature search using two databases (PubMed and the Cochrane Library) with the following terms: ("Circulating tumor cells" OR CTC) AND "breast cancer", covering the period from 2004 to April 2023. The primary outcome measured was the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of various CTC enrichment methods in comparison with the CellSearch® System. Secondary outcomes included the prognostic value of CTCs in evaluating response to treatment based on survival rates. Generally, a high level of agreement between CellSearch and other methods was observed in isolating CTCs from patients' blood with both metastatic and early-stage disease. Studies asserting the superiority of new methods over CellSearch frequently used clinically unvalidated cut-off thresholds for their patient cohorts. Additionally, these studies sometimes included different nonoverlapping patient cohorts and lacked a standardized chemotherapy treatment protocol, which could affect the quantitative changes in CTC. It is evident that methods simultaneously composed of physical and immunomagnetic approaches for CTC isolation significantly surpass CellSearch, which relies solely on the expression of specific markers on the CTCs' surface. The count of CTCs has been established as a predictive marker in terms of clinically important parameters namely progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The CTC-count value was significantly correlated with PFS and OS rates.
循环肿瘤细胞(CTCs)作为肿瘤学中的诊断和预后标志物,在临床实践中的重要性日益凸显。目前,存在多种检测患者生物体液中CTCs的方法。本系统评价旨在比较从乳腺癌患者血液中分离和检测CTCs的不同技术与美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的CellSearch®技术的效能。我们使用两个数据库(PubMed和Cochrane图书馆),采用以下检索词进行了系统的文献检索:(“循环肿瘤细胞”或CTCs)以及“乳腺癌”,检索时间跨度为2004年至2023年4月。测量的主要结果是与CellSearch®系统相比,各种CTCs富集方法的敏感性、特异性和总体准确性。次要结果包括基于生存率评估CTCs在评估治疗反应中的预后价值。总体而言,在从转移性和早期疾病患者血液中分离CTCs方面,观察到CellSearch与其他方法之间具有高度一致性。声称新方法优于CellSearch的研究,其患者队列经常使用临床未经验证的截断阈值。此外,这些研究有时纳入了不同的非重叠患者队列,且缺乏标准化的化疗治疗方案,这可能会影响CTCs的定量变化。显然,同时由物理和免疫磁方法组成的CTCs分离方法显著优于仅依赖CTCs表面特定标志物表达的CellSearch。就无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)等临床重要参数而言,CTCs计数已被确立为一种预测标志物。CTCs计数与PFS和OS率显著相关。