Nordsjællands Hospital
Method comparison of CTC detection with
®
®
CytoTrack and CellSearch
Ann-Britt Nygaard1, Peer Horn2, Anastasiya Haugaard1, Sarah Nejlund1, Jörg Klingelhöfer3,
Ivan Brandslund2, György Sölétormos1, Thore Hillig1
1Department
of Clinical Biochemistry, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
2Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Lillebælt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
3Department of Neuroscience and Pharmacology, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Objective: Assess performance of
CytoTrack® compared to CellSearch® CTC analysis.
Method
MCF-7 tumor cells were spiked into donor blood samples or directly onto microscope glass slides using
®
®
FACSAria cell sorter. Recoveries of MCF-7 cells were analyzed with CytoTrack or CellSearch
methods.
Microscopy
(n=3)
recovery
Spiking efficiency
CK
MCF-7 tumor cells
culturing
150 MCF-7
CellSearch ®
DAPI
CD45
DAPI/CK
recovery
(n=5)
CytoTrack ®
recovery
(n=5)
Results
®
CytoTrack
®
CellSearch
Recoveries of the MCF-7 cells were determined by the
or
methods and given
as either single MCF-7 cells or events. Results are based on five replicate tests. Error bars represent
95% CI. No significant difference in methods of CTC recovery (p>0.05 ) was observed.
MCF-7
Expected
Tumor cells
Observed MCF-7 cells count
Recovery
Average
SD
95 % CI
Average
SD
95 % CI
% CV
CellSearch®
120
102
3
99-105
85
3
83-87
3
CytoTrack®
120
105
13
94-116
87
11
78-97
12
MCF-7
Observed MCF-7 event count
Expected
Tumor cells Average
SD
95 % CI Average
Recovery
SD
95 % CI
% CV
CellSearch®
120
93
4
89-96
77
3
74-80
5
CytoTrack®
120
82
13
71-93
68
11
59-78
16
®
®
Conclusion
Efficiencies of MCF-7 cells/events recoveries with CytoTrack® and CellSearch® methods were
comparable, with recoveries of 87% and 85% respectively.
Acknowledgements
The study was performed in collaboration with CytoTrack® Aps and Herlev Hospital. The CytoTrack®
scanner was funded by Toyota-Fonden, Denmark. The study was funded by a research grant from
Nordsjællands Hospital.
Thore Hillig, e-mail: [email protected]