ReviewBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2015
A Quantitative Perspective on Surface Marker Selection for the Isolation of Functional Tumor Cells.
Review in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microfluidic isolation and release of live disseminated breast tumor cells in bone marrow.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Single-Molecule View at Nanoparticle Targeting Selectivity: Correlating Ligand Functionality and Cell Receptor Density.ACS nano · 2022Article
- Article
- Increased yield of gelatin coated therapeutic cells through cholesterol insertion.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2021Article
- Past, Present, and Future of Affinity-based Cell Separation Technologies.Acta biomaterialia · 2020Review
- Cancer biomarker profiling using nanozyme containing iron oxide loaded with gold particles.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Coatings on mammalian cells: interfacing cells with their environment.Journal of biological engineering · 2019Review
- The Use of Microfluidic Technology for Cancer Applications and Liquid Biopsy.Micromachines · 2018Review
- Comparison of eosin and fluorescein conjugates for the photoinitiation of cell-compatible polymer coatings.PloS one · 2018Article
- Placental apoptosis in recurrent miscarriage.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2017Article
- The Role of Surface Receptor Density in Surface-Initiated Polymerizations for Cancer Cell Isolation.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Much effort has gone into developing fluid biopsies of patient peripheral blood for the monitoring of metastatic cancers. One common approach is to isolate and analyze tumor cells in the peripheral blood. Widespread clinical implementation of this approach has been hindered by the current choice of targeting epithelial markers known to be highly variable in primary tumor sites. Here, we review current antigen-based tumor cell isolation strategies and offer biological context for commonly studied cancer surface markers. Expression levels of the most common markers are quantitated for three breast cancer and two non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lineage models. These levels are contrasted with that present on healthy peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) for comparison to expected background levels in a fluid biopsy setting. A key feature of this work is establishing a metric of markers per square micrometer. This describes an average marker density on the cell membrane surface, which is a critical metric for emerging isolation strategies. These results serve to extend expression of key tumor markers in a sensitive and dynamic manner beyond traditional positive/negative immunohistochemical staining to guide future fluid biopsy targeting strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.