ArticleCancers2021
The Mechanical Fingerprint of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) in Breast Cancer Patients.
Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanomechanical Phenotyping of Circulating Tumor Cells with Atomic Force Microscopy.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Multifaceted Approaches in Epithelial Cell Adhesion Molecule-Mediated Circulating Tumor Cell Isolation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mechanical signatures in cancer metastasis.npj biological physics and mechanics · 2025Review
- Clinical application of PBMCs in breast cancer: detection, treatment evaluation and prognosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- [Recent advances in responsive isolation, release and clinical application of circulating tumor cells].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2024Review
- Liquid Biopsies: Flowing Biomarkers.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cortical Mechanics and Clinical Implications.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a potential predictive surrogate marker for disease monitoring. Due to the sparse knowledge about their phenotype and its changes during cancer progression and treatment response, CTC isolation remains challenging. Here we focused on the mechanical characterization of circulating non-hematopoietic cells from breast cancer patients to evaluate its utility for CTC detection. For proof of premise, we used healthy peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), human MDA-MB 231 breast cancer cells and human HL-60 leukemia cells to create a CTC model system. For translational experiments CD45 negative cells-possible CTCs-were isolated from blood samples of patients with mamma carcinoma. Cells were mechanically characterized in the optical stretcher (OS). Active and passive cell mechanical data were related with physiological descriptors by a random forest (RF) classifier to identify cell type specific properties. Cancer cells were well distinguishable from PBMC in cell line tests. Analysis of clinical samples revealed that in PBMC the elliptic deformation was significantly increased compared to non-hematopoietic cells. Interestingly, non-hematopoietic cells showed significantly higher shape restoration. Based on Kelvin-Voigt modeling, the RF algorithm revealed that elliptic deformation and shape restoration were crucial parameters and that the OS discriminated non-hematopoietic cells from PBMC with an accuracy of 0.69, a sensitivity of 0.74, and specificity of 0.63. The CD45 negative cell population in the blood of breast cancer patients is mechanically distinguishable from healthy PBMC. Together with cell morphology, the mechanical fingerprint might be an appropriate tool for marker-free CTC detection.
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.