1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic Threshold for Circulating Tumor Cells in Patients With Pancreatic and Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are detectable in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and are accurate prognostic markers although the optimum threshold has not been defined.

          Objective

          This work aims to define optimal prognostic CTC thresholds in PanNET and midgut NETs.

          Patients and Methods

          CellSearch was used to enumerate CTCs in 199 patients with metastatic pancreatic (PanNET) (90) or midgut NETs (109). Patients were followed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for a minimum of 3 years or until death.

          Results

          The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for progression at 12 months in PanNETs and midgut NETs identified the optimal CTC threshold as 1 or greater and 2 or greater, respectively. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, these thresholds were predictive for 12-month progression with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.69 (P < .01) for PanNETs and 5.88 (P < .003) for midgut NETs. The same thresholds were found to be optimal for predicting death at 36 months, with an OR of 2.87 (P < .03) and 5.09 (P < .005) for PanNETs and midgut NETs, respectively. In multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis for PFS in PanNETs, 1 or greater CTC had a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.6 (P < .01), whereas 2 or greater CTCs had an HR of 2.25 (P < .01) in midgut NETs. In multivariate analysis OS in PanNETs, 1 or greater CTCs had an HR of 3.16 (P < .01) and in midgut NETs, 2 or greater CTCs had an HR of 1.73 (P < .06).

          Conclusions

          The optimal CTC threshold to predict PFS and OS in metastatic PanNETs and midgut NETs is 1 and 2, respectively. These thresholds can be used to stratify patients in clinical practice and clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tumor cells circulate in the peripheral blood of all major carcinomas but not in healthy subjects or patients with nonmalignant diseases.

            The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy, precision, and linearity of the CellSearch system and evaluate the number of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) per 7.5 mL of blood in healthy subjects, patients with nonmalignant diseases, and patients with a variety of metastatic carcinomas. The CellSearch system was used to enumerate CTCs in 7.5 mL of blood. Blood samples spiked with cells from tumor cell lines were used to establish analytical accuracy, reproducibility, and linearity. Prevalence of CTCs was determined in blood from 199 patients with nonmalignant diseases, 964 patients with metastatic carcinomas, and 145 healthy donors. Enumeration of spiked tumor cells was linear over the range of 5 to 1,142 cells, with an average recovery of >/=85% at each spike level. Only 1 of the 344 (0.3%) healthy and nonmalignant disease subjects had >/=2 CTCs per 7.5 mL of blood. In 2,183 blood samples from 964 metastatic carcinoma patients, CTCs ranged from 0 to 23,618 CTCs per 7.5 mL (mean, 60 +/- 693 CTCs per 7.5 mL), and 36% (781 of 2,183) of the specimens had >/=2 CTCs. Detection of >/=2 CTCs occurred at the following rates: 57% (107 of 188) of prostate cancers, 37% (489 of 1,316) of breast cancers, 37% (20 of 53) of ovarian cancers, 30% (99 of 333) of colorectal cancers, 20% (34 of 168) of lung cancers, and 26% (32 of 125) of other cancers. The CellSearch system can be standardized across multiple laboratories and may be used to determine the clinical utility of CTCs. CTCs are extremely rare in healthy subjects and patients with nonmalignant diseases but present in various metastatic carcinomas with a wide range of frequencies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Circulating tumor cells predict survival benefit from treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

              A method for enumerating circulating tumor cells (CTC) has received regulatory clearance. The primary objective of this prospective study was to establish the relationship between posttreatment CTC count and overall survival (OS) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Secondary objectives included determining the prognostic utility of CTC measurement before initiating therapy, and the relationship of CTC to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes and OS at these and other time points. Blood was drawn from CRPC patients with progressive disease starting a new line of chemotherapy before treatment and monthly thereafter. Patients were stratified into predetermined Favorable or Unfavorable groups ( or =5 CTC/7.5mL). Two hundred thirty-one of 276 enrolled patients (84%) were evaluable. Patients with Unfavorable pretreatment CTC (57%) had shorter OS (median OS, 11.5 versus 21.7 months; Cox hazard ratio, 3.3; P 26 to 9.3 months). CTC are the most accurate and independent predictor of OS in CRPC. These data led to Food and Drug Administration clearance of this assay for the evaluation of CRPC.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
                The Endocrine Society
                0021-972X
                1945-7197
                March 01 2021
                March 08 2021
                November 12 2020
                March 01 2021
                March 08 2021
                November 12 2020
                : 106
                : 3
                : 872-882
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
                [2 ]Department of Oncology, UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK
                [4 ]Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London
                [5 ]University College London Medical School, University College London, London
                [6 ]Department of Oncology, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
                Article
                10.1210/clinem/dgaa822
                33180939
                12ed22a4-68ff-4c60-a04e-b0b48198b310
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article