Quantification of circulating endothelial and progenitor cells: comparison of quantitative PCR and four-channel flow cytometry
2008

Comparing Methods for Detecting Blood Cells Related to Cancer

Sample size: 75 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Michael Steurer, Johann Kern, Matthias Zitt, Albert Amberger, Monika Bauer, Günther Gastl, Gerold Untergasser, Eberhard Gunsilius

Primary Institution: Innsbruck Medical University

Hypothesis

Can a PCR-based detection method improve the monitoring of circulating endothelial and progenitor cells in cancer patients compared to flow cytometry?

Conclusion

QPCR is more sensitive but less specific than flow cytometry for detecting circulating endothelial and progenitor cells, and both methods failed to reliably detect an increase in these cells in tumor patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • Flow cytometry detected spiked cells at frequencies of ≥ 0.01%, while qPCR achieved a detection limit of 0.001%.
  • In patients with metastatic NSCLC, CD34 and KDR gene expression was significantly elevated compared to healthy controls.
  • Both methods failed to reliably detect an increase of CEC/CEP in tumor patients.

Takeaway

This study looked at two ways to find special blood cells that might help us understand cancer better. One way was better at finding them, but both ways had trouble showing if cancer made these cells more common.

Methodology

The study compared flow cytometry and qPCR for detecting circulating endothelial and progenitor cells in blood samples from healthy volunteers and cancer patients.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the non-specificity of the markers used in both detection methods.

Limitations

The study lacked specific markers for endothelial cells, which limited the ability to distinguish these cells from other cell types.

Participant Demographics

Participants included 30 healthy volunteers, 20 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, and 25 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p = 0.028 and p = 0.002

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1756-0500-1-71

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication