التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Assessment of Different Circulating Tumor Cell Platforms for Uveal Melanoma: Potential Impact for Future Routine Clinical Practice. |
| المؤلفون: |
Martel, Arnaud, Mograbi, Baharia, Romeo, Barnabe, Gastaud, Lauris, Lalvee, Salome, Zahaf, Katia, Fayada, Julien, Nahon-Esteve, Sacha, Bonnetaud, Christelle, Salah, Myriam, Tanga, Virginie, Baillif, Stéphanie, Bertolotto, Corine, Lassalle, Sandra, Hofman, Paul |
| المصدر: |
International Journal of Molecular Sciences; Jul2023, Vol. 24 Issue 13, p11075, 19p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
MELANOMA, MEDICAL screening, ERGONOMICS, CELL lines, GENETICS, IMMUNOCHEMISTRY, BRAF genes |
| مستخلص: |
Liquid biopsy and circulating tumor cell (CTC) screening has gained interest over the last two decades for detecting almost all solid malignancies. To date, the major limitation in terms of the applicability of CTC screening in daily clinical practice is the lack of reproducibility due to the high number of platforms available that use various technologies (e.g., label-dependent versus label-free detection). Only a few studies have compared different CTC platforms. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of four commercially available CTC platforms (Vortex (VTX-1), ClearCell FX, ISET, and Cellsearch) for the detection and identification of uveal melanoma cells (OMM 2.3 cell line). Tumor cells were seeded in RPMI medium and venous blood from healthy donors, and then processed similarly using these four platforms. Melan-A immunochemistry was performed to identify tumor cells, except when the Cellsearch device was used (automated identification). The mean overall recovery rates (with mean recovered cells) were 39.2% (19.92), 22.2% (11.31), 8.9% (4.85), and 1.1% (0.20) for the ISET, Vortex (VTX-1), ClearCell FX, and CellSearch platforms, respectively. Although paramount, the recovery rate is not sufficient to assess a CTC platform. Other parameters, such as the purpose for using a platform (diagnosis, genetics, drug sensitivity, or patient-derived xenograft models), reproducibility, purity, user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and ergonomics, should also be considered before they can be used in daily clinical practice and are discussed in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of International Journal of Molecular Sciences is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder