No abstract

The clinical use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration for staging of metastatic breast The clinical use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration for staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC): International expert consensus paper.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionWe investigated the frequency of detection and the prognostic and predictive significance of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in patients with recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck carcinoma (HNC) before starting systemic therapy.Patients and methodsUsing the CellSearch technology, CTCs were assessed prospectively in peripheral blood of 53 R/M-HNC patients. We performed spiking experiments to test the diagnostic performance of the CellSearch platform in identifying squamous carcinoma cells.ResultsCTCs were identified in 14 (26%) and 22 (41%) patients at baseline and at any time point, respectively. In univariate analysis ≥2 CTCs had a poorer prognostic role than 0–1 CTC. In multivariate analysis, the presence of one CTC or more was associated with a poor prognosis both in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) [Hazard Ratio (HR): 3.068, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.53–6.13, p 0.002] and overall survival (OS) [HR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.48–6.0, p 0.002]. A disease control after systemic therapy was obtained in 8% of CTC-positive patients as opposed to 45% in CTC-negative ones (p 0.03). The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression was identified in 45% of CTC-positive patients.DiscussionIn conclusion, CTCs are detected in one out of three patients with RM-HNC. CTC detection is a strong prognostic parameter and may be predictive of treatment efficacy. The frequency of EGFR expression in CTCs seems to be lower than that expected in the primary tumor.

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and their progenitors (EPC) are restricted subpopulations of peripheral blood (PB), cord blood (CB), and bone marrow (BM) cells, involved in the endothelial homeostasis maintenance. Both CEC and EPC are thought to represent potential biomarkers in several clinical conditions involving endothelial turnover/remodeling. Although different flow cytometry methods for CEC and EPC characterization have been published so far, none of them have reached consistent conclusions, therefore consensus guidelines with respect to CEC and EPC identification and quantification need to be established. Here, we have carried out an in depth investigation of CEC and EPC phenotypes in healthy PB, CB and BM samples, by optimizing a reliable polychromatic flow cytometry (PFC) panel. Results showed that the brightness of CD34 expression on healthy PB and CB circulating cells represents a key benchmark for the identification of CEC (CD45neg/CD34bright/CD146pos) respect to the hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) compartment (CD45dim/CD34pos/CD146neg). This approach, combined with a dual-platform counting technique, allowed a sharp CEC enumeration in healthy PB (n 5 38), and resulting in consistent CEC counts with previously reported data (median 5 11.7 cells/ml). In parallel, by using rigorous PFC conditions, CD34pos/CD45dim/CD133pos/VEGFR2pos EPC were not found in any healthy PB or CB sample, since VEGFR2 expression was never detectable on the surface of CD34pos/CD45dim/CD133pos cells. Notably, the putative EPC phenotype was observed in all analyzed BM samples (n 5 12), and the expression of CD146 and VEGFR2, on BM cells, was not restricted to the CD34bright compartment, but also appeared on the HSC surface. Altogether, our findings suggest that the previously reported EPC antigen profile, defined by the simultaneous expression of VEGFR2 and CD133 on the surface of CD45dim/CD34pos cells, should be carefully re-evaluated and further studies should be conducted to redefine EPC features in order to translate CEC and EPC characterization into clinical practice. V C 2015 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry

Bone marrow and adipose tissue human mesenchymal stem cells were seeded in highly performing 3D gelatin–chitosan hybrid hydrogels of varying chitosan content in the presence of human platelet lysate and evaluated for their proliferation and osteogenic differentiation. Both bone marrow and adipose tissue human mesenchymal stem cells in gelatin–chitosan hybrid hydrogel 1 (chitosan content 8.1%) or gelatin–chitosan hybrid hydrogel 2 (chitosan 14.9%) showed high levels of viability (80%–90%), and their proliferation and osteogenic differentiation was significantly higher with human platelet lysate compared to fetal bovine serum, particularly in gelatin–chitosan hybrid hydrogel 1. Mineralization was detected early, after 21 days of culture, when human platelet lysate was used in the presence of osteogenic stimuli. Proteomic characterization of human platelet lysate highlighted 59 proteins mainly involved in functions related to cell adhesion, cellular repairing mechanisms, and regulation of cell differentiation. In conclusion, the combination of our gelatin–chitosan hybrid hydrogels with hPL represents a promising strategy for bone regenerative medicine using human mesenchymal stem cells.

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) represent a restricted peripheral blood (PB) cell subpopulation with high potential diagnostic value in many endothelium-involving diseases. However, whereas the interest in CEC studies has grown, the standardization level of their detection has not. Here, we undertook the task to align CEC phenotypes and counts, by standardizing a novel flow cytometry approach, within a network of six laboratories. CEC were identified as alive/nucleated/CD45negative/CD34bright/CD146positive events and enumerated in 269 healthy PB samples. Standardization was demonstrated by the achievement of low inter-laboratory Coefficients of Variation (CVL), calculated on the basis of Median Fluorescence Intensity values of the most stable antigens that allowed CEC identification and count (CVL of CD34bright on CEC ~ 30%; CVL of CD45 on Lymphocytes ~ 20%). By aggregating data acquired from all sites, CEC numbers in the healthy population were captured (medianfemale = 9.31 CEC/mL; medianmale = 11.55 CEC/mL). CEC count biological variability and method specificity were finally assessed. Results, obtained on a large population of donors, demonstrate that the established procedure might be adopted as standardized method for CEC analysis in clinical and in research settings, providing a CEC physiological baseline range, useful as starting point for their clinical monitoring in endothelial dysfunctions.