英國的一項研究確定了關(guān)于循環(huán)腫瘤細胞(CTC)對神經(jīng)內分泌腫瘤患者的預后意義。研究結果在線(xiàn)發(fā)表于2012年12月17日的Journal of Clinical Oncology上[全文下載]。

　　這項單中心、前瞻性研究的研究，共納入了176例存在可測量病灶的轉移性神經(jīng)內分泌腫瘤(NET)患者。循環(huán)腫瘤細胞通過(guò)使用一項半自動(dòng)技術(shù)進(jìn)行測定：利用免疫磁性分離方法對上皮細胞粘附的分子表達細胞進(jìn)行分離。

　　研究結果顯示，整體而言，49%的患者在每7.5mL血樣中存在≥1個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞，42%的患者存在≥2個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞，30%的患者存在≥5個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞。循環(huán)腫瘤細胞的存在與腫瘤負擔增加、腫瘤分級提高以及嗜鉻粒蛋白A(CgA)水平提高之間存在關(guān)聯(lián)。通過(guò)包含90例患者的訓練集以及85例患者的驗證集，研究者定義了<1個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞或≥1個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞為無(wú)進(jìn)展存活期(PFS)相關(guān)最佳預后閾值點(diǎn)。通過(guò)該閾值發(fā)現，存在≥1個(gè)循環(huán)腫瘤細胞與較差的PFS以及較差總生存期(OS)之間存在關(guān)聯(lián)(風(fēng)險比分別為6.6與8.0；二者P<0.001)。

　　是否檢出CTC兩組患者的PFS曲線(xiàn)

　　對包括分級、腫瘤負擔以及等CgA在內的其他預后指標進(jìn)行的多變量分析結果顯示，循環(huán)腫瘤細胞仍為一個(gè)顯著(zhù)預后因素。對于各等級腫瘤，根據存在的循環(huán)腫瘤細胞可對不良預后的患者亞群進(jìn)行界定。對于1級腫瘤，PFS風(fēng)險比為5.0(P =0.017)，OS風(fēng)險比為7.2(P =0.023)。而對于2級腫瘤，PFS風(fēng)險比為3.5(P =0.018)，OS風(fēng)險比為5.2(P =0.036)。

　　由此得出結論，對于轉移性神經(jīng)內分泌癌患者，循環(huán)腫瘤細胞是一種有前途的預后指標，應在針對明確腫瘤亞型以及治療方法的臨床試驗環(huán)境下，進(jìn)一步對其進(jìn)行評估。

　　Purpose

　　To determine the prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in patients with neuroendocrinecancer.

　　Patients and Methods

　　In this single-center prospective study, 176 patients with measurable metastatic neuroendocrinetumors (NETs) were recruited. CTCs were measured using a semiautomated techniquebased on immunomagnetic separation of epithelial cell adhesion molecule-expressing cells.

　　Results

　　Overall, 49% patients had ≥ one CTC, 42% had ≥ two CTCs, and 30% had ≥ five CTCs in 7.5mL blood. Presence of CTCs was associated with increased burden, increased tumor grade,and elevated serum chromogranin A (CgA). Using a 90-patient training set and 85-patientvalidation set, we defined a cutoff of < one or ≥ one as the optimal prognostic threshold withrespect to progression-free survival (PFS). Applying this threshold, the presence of one CTCwas associated with worse PFS and overall survival (OS; hazard ratios [HRs], 6.6 and 8.0,respectively; both P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, CTCs remained significant when otherprognostic markers, grade, tumor burden, and CgA were included. Within grades, presence ofCTCs was able to define a poor prognostic subgroup. For grade 1, HRs were 5.0 forPFS (P=0.017) and 7.2 for OS (P=0.023); for grade 2, HRs were 3.5 for PFS (P=0.018) and5.2 for OS (P=0.036).

　　Conclusion

　　CTCs are a promising prognostic marker for patients with NETs and should be assessed in thecontext of clinical trials with defined tumor subtypes and therapy.
　　查看全文