Improvement of breast cancer cell detection by immunomagnetic enrichment
- 1 January 1999
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier in Cytotherapy
- Vol. 1 (2) , 135-139
- https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000141251
Abstract
Contaminating breast cancer cells in leukapheresis harvested for reinfusion to rebuild hemopoiesis after high-dose therapy have been described by several investigators. Methods for tumor cell detection are conventional immunocytochemistry, culture techniques and reverse transcriptase PCR. The percentage of tumor cell positive leukaphereses shows a wide variation. An approach to clarify if these cells can induce systemic relapse is to characterize them molecular-genetically and immunologically, but these techniques require a sufficient cell count. We compared conventional immunocytochemistry with immunocytochemistry after immunomagnetic enrichment of cancer cells by HEA-125 magnetic microbeads for the detection of micrometastatic tumor cells. A total of 25 samples, consisting of 16 samples from G-CSF-mobilized peripheral stem cell harvests, eight BM aspirations and one peripheral blood sample were investigated without [median 2, range 1–3×106 MNCs] and after [median 5, range 1–10×107, MNCs] HEA-microbead selection. Additionally 10 buffy coat samples from healthy subjects were investigated. Using conventional immunocytochemistry, tumor cells could be detected in nine stem cell samples. Two BM samples and the blood sample (48%) were positive, with a median tumor cell load of 0 (0–12) cells per sample (mean: 2.4). By HEA-bead selection the rate of positivity could be increased to 88% (13 stem cell samples, eight marrow samples and one blood sample) with a median load of 6 (0–47) (mean 10.6) suspected cells (p < 0.007). However, calculation of recovery revealed tumor cell losses by immunobead selection. False positive results were not seen. We conclude first that immunomagnetic selection is an excellent and highly sensitive tool to enrich contaminating cancer cells from marrow and stem cell samples; second that the existence of real tumor cell negative stem cell harvests is doubtful; and third that immunobead selection delivers sufficient tumor cell counts for their further characterization by molecular and immunological methods.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Molecular Cytokeratin 19 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (CK19 RT-PCR) and Immunocytochemical Detection of Micrometastatic Breast Cancer Cells in Hematopoietic HarvestsJournal of Hematotherapy, 1997
- Tumor cell contamination of peripheral blood stem cell transplants and bone marrow in high-risk breast cancer patientsBone Marrow Transplantation, 1997
- Micrometastatic Breast Cancer Cells in Bone Marrow at Primary Surgery: Prognostic Value in Comparison With Nodal StatusJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1996
- Reverse transcriptase/polymerase chain reaction detection of cytokeratin-19 mRNA in bone marrow and blood of breast cancer patientsZeitschrift für Krebsforschung und Klinische Onkologie, 1996
- Detection of genetic alterations in micrometastatic cells in bone marrow of cancer patients by fluorescence in situ hybridizationCancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 1996
- Diagnosis of micrometastases by the amplification of tissue-specific genesGene, 1995
- Transplantation of CD34+Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells*Journal of Hematotherapy, 1994
- Differential Expression of Proliferation-Associated Molecules in Individual Micrometastatic Carcinoma CellsJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993
- Functional immunocytopathology and the diagnosis of bone marrow micrometastasesCytopathology, 1990
- Micrometastatic cancer cells in bone marrow: in vitro detection with anti-cytokeratin and in vivo labeling with anti-17-1A monoclonal antibodies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1987