Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35397078›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2022

Circulating tumor cell detection: A prospective comparison between CellSearch® and RareCyte® platforms in patients with progressive metastatic breast cancer.

Luc Dirix, Andy Buys, Steffy Oeyen, Dieter Peeters, Vincent Liègeois, Annemie Prové, Dieter Rondas, Liesbet Vervoort, Véronique Mariën, Steven Van Laere and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Personalized treatment approach for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luc DirixGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium. luc.dirix@gza.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-9964
Andy BuysGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Steffy OeyenGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Dieter PeetersCellCarta, Sint-Bavostraat 78-80, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Vincent LiègeoisGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Annemie ProvéGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Dieter RondasCellCarta, Sint-Bavostraat 78-80, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Liesbet VervoortCellCarta, Sint-Bavostraat 78-80, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Véronique MariënCellCarta, Sint-Bavostraat 78-80, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Steven Van LaereGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Peter VermeulenGZA Sint Augustinus, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Augustinus · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCirculating tumor cells (CTCs) are prognostic in patients with breast cancer. Several technical platforms exist for their enumeration and characterization. Comparative studies between these platforms are scarce. The RareCyte CTC detection is theoretically more sensitive than the established CellSearch platform, which identifies only CTCs that express EpCAM and cytokeratin. This study prospectively compares CTC enumeration in patients with breast cancer in a paired analysis using these two platforms. It investigates survival outcomes in groups defined by a CTC count threshold.

designCTC enumeration was performed on 100 samples obtained from 86 patients with progressive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in two independent laboratories each blinded to the clinical data and the results from the other platform.

resultsOne hundred paired samples were collected and CTC counts were determined using the CellSearch and RareCyte CTC platforms. In total, 65% and 75% of samples had at least one detectable CTC in 7.5 mL blood with the CellSearch and the RareCyte systems, respectively. CTC counts with the CellSearch system ranged from 0 to 2289 with a median of 3 CTCs, the RareCyte CTC counts ranged from 0 to 1676 with a median of 3 CTCs. The number of samples with 5 or more CTCs in 7.5 mL of blood (the poor prognosis cut-off validated with the CellSearch system) blood was 45% with the CellSearch test and 48% with the RareCyte test. CTC counts quantified with the CellSearch and the RareCyte systems were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.8235 (0.7450-0.8795) p < 0.001). 86 patients were included for Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. An increased mortality risk in patients with CellSearch of 5 CTCs or more per 7.5 mL blood, with a log-rank hazard ratio of 5.164 (2.579-10.34) (p < 0.001) was confirmed. The survival analysis with RareCyte CTC counts with the identical cut-off showed a significantly impaired survival with a hazard ratio of 4.213 (2.153-8.244) (p < 0.001).

conclusionOur data demonstrate the analytical and prognostic equivalence of CellSearch and RareCyte CTC enumeration platforms in patients with MBC using the CellSearch cut-off. This is the first demonstration of prognostic significance using the RareCyte platform.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingBiomarkers, TumorCell CountFemaleHumansPrognosisProspective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCellSearchCirculating tumor cells,Metastatic breast cancerRareCyte

Identifiers

PMID35397078
PMCPMC9090706
OpenAlexW4223471417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.