Clinical Relevance of Mesenchymal- and Stem-Associated Phenotypes in Circulating Tumor Cells Isolated from Lung Cancer Patients

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Among the types of lung cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is more common, while small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is less frequent yet more aggressive. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), albeit rare, have been portrayed as essential players in the progression of lung cancer. CTCs are considered to adopt an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype and characteristics of cancer stem cells (CSCs). This EMT (or partial) phenotype affords these cells the ability to escape from the primary tumor, travel into the bloodstream, and survive extremely adverse conditions, before colonizing distant foci. Acquisition of CSC features, such as self-renewal, differentiation, and migratory potential, further reflect CTCs’ invasive potential. CSCs have been identified in lung cancer, and expression of EMT markers has previously been correlated with poor clinical outcomes. Thus far, a vast majority of studies have concentrated on CTC detection and enumeration as a prognostic tools of patients’ survival or for monitoring treatment efficacy. In this review, we highlight EMT and CSC markers in CTCs and focus on the clinical significance of these phenotypes in the progression of both non-small- and small-cell lung cancer

Evaluation of Isolation Methods for Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs)

Background: Detection of CTCs is a poor prognostic factor for many cancer types; however, their very low frequency represents an obstacle for their detection. The objective of the current study was to compare the performance of commonly used methods for CTCs isolation. Methods: The evaluated methods using spiking experiments of MCF7, SKBR3 and MDA MB-231 breast cancer cell lines were (i) ficoll density gradient separation (DGS), (ii) red blood cell lysis (Erythrolysis) isolation, (iii) positive immunomagnetic selection (EpCAM Dynal beads), (iv) two different negative immunomagnetic separation systems (Dynal vs Miltenyi CD45 beads) as well as (v) the Cell Search platform and (vi) the ISET system. Results: The recovery rates of Erythrolysis and DGS were 39% and 24%, respectively. Magnetic isolations are ranked from the worse to the best recovery rate as follows:, Myltenyi-anti-CD45 microbeads (24%); Dynal-anti-EpCAM beads (75%); Dynabeads-anti-CD45 (97%). CTCs isolation from blood samples using the CellSearch and ISET systems revealed that the recovery rate for Cell Search and ISET was 52% and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: Dynal-anti-CD45 beads have the best recovery rate compared to other magnetic methods. Furthermore the recovery rate of ISET was higher compared to Cell Search, especially for the more aggressive MDA-MB 231 cell line