Circulating Tumor Cells Are Detectable and Independent of PSA and PSMA-PET Metrics in Localized High-Risk and Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Rastogi, S.; Sato, N.; Lee, S.; Lee, M.-J.; McKinney, Y.; Lindenberg, M. L.; Mena, E.; Thomas, A.; Shrestha, R. L.; Choyke, P. L.
Show abstract
PurposeThis study evaluated the feasibility of detecting circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in localized high risk (HR) and biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients and examined the correlation between CTCs, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, 18F-DCFPyL PET parameters and clinical progression. MethodsBaseline samples were collected from 105 PCa patients enrolled in clinical trial NCT03181867 before 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging. Patients were divided into two cohorts-localized HR and BCR. CTCs were enriched using magnetic EpCAM-PE beads and enumerated by flow cytometry (n=82) or by CD45 depletion followed by EpCAM/PSMA expression analysis by ddPCR (n=23). CTC value of [≥]3 CTCs/10 mL blood was established as abnormal using 10 healthy female controls. Correlations were assessed between CTCs, PSA, PET parameters and clinical progression. ResultsIn the flow group, >3 EpCAM CTCs/10 mL were found in 14% (n=2/14) of HR and 24% (n=16/68) of BCR patients. In the ddPCR group, 53% (n=9/17) of HR and 17% (n=1/6) of BCR patients had greater than normal EPCAM expression, whereas higher than normal PSMA expression was observed in 29% (N=5/17) of HR and 17% (N=1/6) of BCR patients. Furthermore, in the combined cohorts within the ddPCR group, six patients had only EPCAM expression, two had only PSMA and four had both. No significant correlation was found between CTCs and serum PSA or 18F-DCFPyL PET parameters or clinical progression in either group. ConclusionCTCs were detectable in both HR and BCR patients using flow cytometry and ddPCR based methods even in localized disease, suggesting that CTCs can be used as a liquid biopsy that may reflect underlying disease activity. These findings support the potential role of CTCs as a minimally invasive biomarker independent of serum PSA levels and 18F-DCFPyL PET parameters.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Circulating Tumor-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Predict Clinical Outcomes in 11C Choline-identified Oligometastatic Castration-Refractory Prostate Cancer Treated with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy 95%
- Association Between Artificial Intelligence-Derived Tumor Volume and Oncologic Outcomes for Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy 91%
- Improving SBRT by re-wiring immunosuppressive neutrophils in murine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Subset of Localized Prostate Cancer Displays an Immunogenic Phenotype Associated with Losses of Key Tumor Suppressor Genes 94%
- PSMA+ Extracellular Vesicles are a Biomarker for SABR in Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer Analysis from the STOMP-like and ORIOLE trial cohorts 94%
- Assessment of Androgen Receptor splice variant-7 as a biomarker of clinical response in castration-sensitive prostate cancer 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Stroma transcriptomic and proteomic profile of prostate cancer metastasis xenograft models reveals conservation of bonemicroenvironment signatures 93%
- Immunohistochemistry-based taxonomical classification of bladder cancer predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy 92%
- Tissue Factor Expression in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Marker of HPV-Independent Disease 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Digital Spatial Profiling identifies phospho-JNK as a biomarker for early risk stratification of aggressive prostate cancer 96%
- The expression of PKM1 and PKM2 in developing, benign, and cancerous prostatic tissues 94%
- 5hmC-profiles in Puerto Rican Hispanic/Latino men with aggressive prostate cancer 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.