Shao Xuan, Jin Xiaoyan, Chen Zhigang, Zhang Zhigang, Chen Wuzhen, Jiang Jingxin, Wang Zhen, Cui Ying, Fan Wan-Hung, Wang Ke, Yu Xiuyan, Huang Jian
Department of Breast Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Key Laboratory of Tumor Microenvironment and Immune Therapy of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China.
Front Oncol. 2022 Aug 1;12:890248. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.890248. eCollection 2022.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been recognized as a sensitive biomarker for breast cancer (BC). This study aimed to comprehensively compare CTC with imaging modalities, including ultrasonography, mammography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screening for BC in Chinese women.
Three hundred forty-three participants were enrolled in this study, including 102 treatment-naive BC patients, 177 with breast benign diseases (BBD) and 64 healthy female patients. All participants underwent CTC testing and at least one of the following examinations, ultrasonography, mammography, and MRI at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University between December 2017 and November 2020. CTCs were quantitatively assessed using cell counting (CTC detection rate/counts) and categorically examined using a cutoff value (CTC classification). The diagnostic power of CTC tests and imaging modalities, including accuracy and capability to predict clinicopathological characteristics of BC, were evaluated and compared.
CTC classification with a cutoff value of 2 showed a "good" diagnostic accuracy of 0.889 for early- to mid-stage BC comparable to breast imaging modalities using Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity of 0.872 for BC, and CTC classification had the highest specificity of 0.938. A relatively low sensitivity was found for mammography in this cohort of patients. Successful detection of BC by CTC detection rate/counts, but not CTC classification, correlated with two important clinicopathological features, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. The detection power of certain imaging modalities was also associated with AJCC stage (ultrasonography, = 0.0438 and MRI, = 0.0422) and lymph node metastasis (ultrasonography, 0.0157). There were clear correlations between CTC tests (counts or classification) and imaging BI-RADS scoring system in detecting positive BC cases ( < 0.05). Further correlation analysis suggested that CTC quantity, but not CTC classification, had the capability to predict clinicopathological traits of BC that were identified by ultrasonography.
CTC tests have a diagnostic potency comparable to breast imaging modalities, and may be used as an alternative screening tool for BC.
循环肿瘤细胞(CTC)已被公认为乳腺癌(BC)的一种敏感生物标志物。本研究旨在全面比较CTC与包括超声、乳腺X线摄影和对比增强磁共振成像(MRI)在内的成像方式在中国女性乳腺癌筛查中的作用。
本研究纳入了343名参与者,包括102例未经治疗的乳腺癌患者、177例乳腺良性疾病(BBD)患者和64例健康女性患者。2017年12月至2020年11月期间,所有参与者均在浙江大学医学院附属第二医院接受了CTC检测以及以下至少一项检查:超声、乳腺X线摄影和MRI。使用细胞计数(CTC检测率/计数)对CTC进行定量评估,并使用临界值(CTC分类)进行分类检查。评估并比较了CTC检测和成像方式的诊断能力,包括准确性以及预测乳腺癌临床病理特征的能力。
临界值为2的CTC分类对早期至中期乳腺癌显示出“良好”的诊断准确性,为0.889,与使用乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)的乳腺成像方式相当。MRI对乳腺癌的敏感性最高,为0.872,而CTC分类的特异性最高,为0.938。在该队列患者中,乳腺X线摄影的敏感性相对较低。通过CTC检测率/计数成功检测到乳腺癌,但CTC分类未成功检测到,这与两个重要的临床病理特征相关,即美国癌症联合委员会(AJCC)分期和肿瘤-淋巴结-转移(TNM)分期。某些成像方式的检测能力也与AJCC分期(超声,P = 0.0438;MRI,P = 0.0422)和淋巴结转移(超声,P = 0.0157)相关。在检测阳性乳腺癌病例时,CTC检测(计数或分类)与成像BI-RADS评分系统之间存在明显相关性(P < 0.05)。进一步的相关性分析表明,CTC数量而非CTC分类有能力预测超声所确定的乳腺癌临床病理特征。
CTC检测具有与乳腺成像方式相当的诊断效力,可作为乳腺癌的替代筛查工具。