Back

Beyond Capture Efficiency: A Multidimensional Framework for Benchmarking Circulating Tumor Cell Isolation Technologies

von Zuben de Valega Negrao, C.; Hendrick, H.; Ammar, F.; V. Klotz, R.; Dias, S.; Yu, M.

2026-05-09 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.05.05.722894 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Metastasis remains the major cause of cancer-related mortality, and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are both candidate liquid-biopsy biomarkers and plausible intermediates of metastatic dissemination. Because CTCs are extremely rare in peripheral blood, platform comparisons have often focused solely on recovery. That focus is insufficient for applications that depend on the quality of the recovered material, including single-cell profiling, short-term culture, and functional testing. Here, we compared four CTC isolation approaches: TellDx CTC System, Genesis System, RosetteSep, and flow cytometry, using spike-in experiments in human blood. Capture efficiency was evaluated across all four platforms; purity was assessed for TellDx, Genesis, and RosetteSep; and post-isolation GFP signal persistence in culture was assessed for TellDx and Genesis as an exploratory proxy for short-term post-isolation preservation. Under the conditions tested, TellDx showed the highest recovery (88.1% {+/-} 3.7%), followed by Genesis (40.6% {+/-} 12.1%), RosetteSep (36.5% {+/-} 9.0%), and flow cytometry (7.6% {+/-} 4.5%). TellDx also showed the highest purity score (3.76), whereas Genesis (2.25) and RosetteSep (2.09) did not differ substantially. In the short-term culture assay, TellDx-derived samples retained a higher normalized GFP signal than Genesis-derived samples at 48 h and 72 h. To synthesize these readouts, we propose the Recovery Performance Index (RPI), a composite score integrating recovery, purity, and post-isolation signal persistence. Within this experimental framework, TellDx achieved the highest RPI. These data support two conclusions. First, platform benchmarking for CTC workflows benefits from multidimensional evaluation rather than recovery alone. Second, under this spike-in model and within the specific workflows used here, TellDx performed best among the platforms tested. The principal contribution of this study is therefore the establishment of a practical benchmarking framework that can be expanded in future work using clinical samples, multiple CTC phenotypes, and orthogonal viability assays.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
19.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
3
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
4
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
5
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
6
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
7
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
8
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
10
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.1%
11
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
12
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.3%
17
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
52 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Oncotarget
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
Antibody Therapeutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
27
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
28
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
29
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
30
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%