Identification of specific subtypes of circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood of cancer patients can provide information about the biology of metastasis and improve patient management. However, to be effective, the method used to identify circulating tumor cells must detect all tumor cell types. We investigated whether the five subtypes of human breast cancer cells that have been defined by global gene expression profiling—normal-like, basal, HER2-positive, and luminal A and B—were identified by CellSearch, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved test that uses antibodies against the cell surface–expressed epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) to isolate circulating tumor cells. We used global gene expression profiling to determine the subtypes of a well-defined panel of 34 human breast cancer cell lines (15 luminal, nine normal-like, five basal-like, and five Her2-positive). We mixed 50-150 cells from 10 of these cell lines with 7.5 mL of blood from a single healthy human donor, and the mixtures were subjected to the CellSearch test to isolate the breast cancer cells. We found that the CellSearch isolation method, which uses EpCAM on the surface of circulating tumor cells for cell isolation, did not recognize, in particular, normal-like breast cancer cells, which in general have aggressive features. New tests that include antibodies that specifically recognize normal-like breast tumor cells but not cells of hematopoietic origin are needed.

Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of flow cytometric immunophenotyping in comparison with classic cytomorphology for diagnosing CNS localizations of hematologic malignancies, and to evaluate the implications of CSF pleocytosis and protein content in this context.

Purpose: Molecular characterization of circulating tumor cells (CTC) holds great promise. Unfortunately, routinely isolated CTC fractions currently still contain contaminating leukocytes, which makes CTC-specific molecular characterization extremely challenging. In this study, we determined mRNA and microRNA (miRNA) expression of potentially CTC-specific genes that are considered to be clinically relevant in breast cancer. Experimental Design: CTCs were isolated with the epithelial cell adhesion molecule–based CellSearch Profile Kit. Selected genes were measured by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR in CTCs of 50 metastatic breast cancer patients collected before starting first-line systemic therapy in blood from 53 healthy blood donors (HBD) and in primary tumors of 8 of the patients. The molecular profiles were associated with CTC counts and clinical parameters and compared with the profiles generated from the corresponding primary tumors. Results: We identified 55 mRNAs and 10 miRNAs more abundantly expressed in samples from 32 patients with at least 5 CTCs in 7.5 mL of blood compared with samples from 9 patients without detectable CTCs and HBDs. Clustering analysis resulted in 4 different patient clusters characterized by 5 distinct gene clusters. Twice the number of patients from cluster 2 to 4 had developed both visceral and nonvisceral metastases. Comparing transcript levels in CTCs with those measured in corresponding primary tumors showed clinically relevant discrepancies in estrogen receptor and HER2 levels. Conclusions: Our study shows that molecular profiling of low numbers of CTCs in a high background of leukocytes is feasible and shows promise for further studies on the clinical relevance of molecular characterization of CTCs. Clin Cancer Res; 17(11); 3600–18. ©2011 AACR.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a potential new biomarker with diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic applications for various solid tumor types. Before beginning large prospective clinical trials to prove the added value of utilizing ctDNA in clinical practice, it is essential to investigate the effects of various preanalytical conditions on the quality of cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) in general and of ctDNA in particular in order to optimize and standardize these conditions. Whole blood samples were collected from patients with metastatic cancer bearing a known somatic variant. The following preanalytical conditions were investigated: (a) different time intervals to plasma isolation (1, 24, and 96 h) and (b) different preservatives in blood collection tubes (EDTA, CellSave, and BCT). The quality of cfDNA/ctDNA was assessed by DNA quantification, digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) for somatic variant detection and a β‐actin fragmentation assay for DNA contamination from lysed leukocytes. In 11 (69%) of our 16 patients, we were able to detect the known somatic variant in ctDNA. We observed a time‐dependent increase in cfDNA concentrations in EDTA tubes, which was positively correlated with an increase in wild‐type copy numbers and large DNA fragments (> 420 bp). Using different preservatives did not affect somatic variant detection ability, but did stabilize cfDNA concentrations over time. Variant allele frequency was affected by fluctuations in cfDNA concentration only in EDTA tubes at 96 h. Both CellSave and BCT tubes ensured optimal ctDNA quality in plasma processed within 96 h after blood collection for downstream somatic variant detection by dPCR.