Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of different methods for the detection of minimal residual disease in blood and bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer: importance for clinical use?

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied cytokeratin-positive (CK+) cells in the bone marrow (BM) and tumor markers (TM) in the blood of 128 patients with primary breast cancer in order to obtain an early diagnosis of residual disease. CK+ cells of two BM aspirations were detected by immunocytochemistry (IC). To evaluate the usefulness of immunomagnetic separation (IMS) for tumor cell enrichment in clinical samples, IMS was performed prior to IC and compared with the results for IC alone. The overall CK+ rate was 34% (44/128 patients), 29% (15/51) for patients with T1 tumors, 33% (28/84) for N0 patients and 31% (26/82) for patients with G1-2 breast carcinoma. Interestingly, 67% of CK+ patients were only positive in one of the two aspirates studied. A comparison between IC alone and IMS/IC could be performed in 70/128 patients (28/70 CK+). In 6/28 patients, CK+ cells were detected by both methods, in 16/28 patients only by IC and in 6/28 patients only by IMS. At least one TM, including carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 15-3 and tissue polypeptide antigen, was increased in 58/128 (45%) patients [21/58 (36%) were CK+ in the BM]. Surprisingly, levels for the extracellular domain of Her-2/neu in serum samples were within the normal range in every patient studied. After a 2-year follow-up, 7/128 patients relapsed (3/7 CK+/TM−; 2/7 CK−/TM+; 2/7 CK−/TM−). We conclude that studying two BM aspirates for CK+ cells by IC in combination with TM determination is useful for identifying patients with a higher risk for relapse, however, tumor cell enrichment techniques will have to be improved for clinical use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veronesi U, Luini A, Galimberti V, Marchini S, Sacchini V, Rilke F: Extent of metastatic axillary involvement in 1446 cases of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 16: 127-133, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pectasides D, Pavlidis N, Gogou L, Antoniou F, Nicolaides C, Tsikalakis D, Fountzilas G: Clinical value of CA 15-3, mucin-like carcinoma-associated antigen, tumor polypeptide antigen, and carcinoembryonic antigen in monitoring early breast cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol 19: 459-464, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nicolini A, Carpi A, Ferrari P, Anselmi L: Clinical use of tumour markers in the postoperative management of breast cancer patients: new concepts. Int J BiolMarkers 12: 181-186, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Sagripanti A, Carpi A: The role of tumour markers in predicting skeletal metastases in breast cancer patients with equivocal bone scintigraphy. Br J Cancer 79: 1443-1447, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  5. Findeisen R, Albrecht S, Richter B, Deutschmann K, Distler W: Comparison of tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) with cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in follow-up of breast cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 36: 841-846, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barrenetxea G, Schneider J, Llorente MF: Use of serum tumor markers for the diagnosis and follow-up of breast cancer. Oncology 55: 447-449, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  7. Leitzel K, Teramoto Y, Konrad K, Chinchilli VM, Volas G, Grossberg H, Harvey H, Demers L, Lipton A: Elevated serum c-erbB-2 antigen levels and decreased response to hormone therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13: 1129-1135, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yamauchi H, O'Neill A, Gelman R, Carney WP, Tenney DY, Hösch S, Hayes DF: Prediction of response to antiestrogen therapy in advanced breast cancer patients by pretreatment circulating levels of extracellular domain of the HER-2/c-neu protein. J Clin Oncol 15: 2518-2525, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vargas-Roig LM, Gago, FE, Tello O, Martin de Civetta MT, Ciocca DR: c-erbB-2 (HER-2/neu) protein and drug resistance in breast cancer patients treated with induction chemotherapy. Int J Cancer 84: 129-134, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  10. Diel IJ, Kaufmann M, Costa SD, Holle R, Von Minckwitz G, Solomayer EF, Kaul S, Bastert G: Micrometastatic breast cancer cells in bone marrow at primary surgery: prognostic value in comparison with nodal status. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 1652-1664, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berger U, Bettelheim R, Mansi JL, Easton D, Coombes RC, Neville AM: The relationship between micrometastases in the bone marrow, histopathologic features of the primary tumor in breast cancer and prognosis. Am J Clin Pathol 90: 1-6, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cote RJ, Rosen PP, Lesser ML, Old LJ, Osborne MP: Prediction of early relapse in patients with operable breast cancer by detection of occult bone marrow micrometastases. J Clin Oncol 9: 1749-1756, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dearnaley DP, Ormerod MG, Sloane JP: Micrometastases in breast cancer: long-term follow-up of the first patient cohort. Eur J Cancer 27: 236-239, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harbeck N, Untch M, Pache L, Eiermann W: Tumour cell detection in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients at primary therapy: results of a 3-year median follow-up. Br J Cancer 69: 566-571, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  15. Molino A, Pelosi G, Turazza M, Sperotto L, Bonetti A, Nortilli R, Fattovich G, Alaimo C, Piubello Q, Pavanel F, Micciolo R, Cetto GL: Bone marrow micrometastases in 109 breast cancer patients: correlations with clinical and pathological features and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat: 42: 23-30, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mansi JL, Gogas H, Bliss JM, Gazet JC, Berger U, Coombes RC: Outcome of primary-breast-cancer patients with micrometastases: a long-term follow-up study. Lancet 354: 197-202, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pantel K, Schlimok G, Braun S, Kutter D, Lindemann F, Schaller G, Funke I, Izbicki R, Riethmüller G: Differential expression of proliferation-associated molecules in individual micrometastatic carcinoma cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1419-1424, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  18. Braun S, Hepp F, Sommer HL, Pantel K: Tumor-antigen heterogeneity of disseminated breast cancer cells: implications for immunotherapy of minimal residual disease. Int J Cancer 84: 1-5, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  19. Braun S, Kentenich C, Janni W, Hepp F, DeWaal J, Willgeroth F, Sommer HL, Pantel K: Lack of effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the elimination of single dormant tumor cells in bone marrow of high-risk breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 18: 80-86, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  20. Baselga J, Tripathy D, Mendelsohn J, Baughman S, Benz CC, Dantis L, Sklar in NT, Seidman AD, Hudis CA, Moore J, Rosen PP, Twaddell T, Henderson IC, Norton L: Phase II study of weekly intravenous recombinant humanized antip185-HER2 monoclonal antibody in patients with HER2/neu overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 14: 737-744, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Braun S, Hepp F, Kentenich CRM, Janni W, Pantel K, Riethmüller G, Willgeroth F, Sommer HL: Monoclonal antibody therapy with Edrecolomab in breast cancer patients: monitoring of elimination of disseminated cytokeratin-positive tumor cells in bone marrow. Clin Cancer Res 5: 3999-4004, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pantel K, Cote RJ, Fodstad O: Detection and clinical importance of micrometastatic disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 1113-1124, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  23. Griwatz C, Brandt B, Assmann G, Zänker KS: An immunological enrichment method for epithelial cells from peripheral blood. J Immunol Methods 183: 251-265, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  24. Naume B, Borgen E, Beiske K, Herstad T, Ravnas G, Renolen A, Thrane-Stehen K, Trachsel S, Funderud S, Kvalheim G: Detection of isolated breast carcinoma cells in peripheral blood or bone marrow by immunomagnetic techniques. J Hematother 6: 103-113, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  25. Naume B, Borgen E, Nesland JM, Beiske K, Gilen E, Renolen A, Ravnas G, Qvist H, Karesen R, Kvalheim G: Increased sensitivity for detection of micrometastases in bone-marrow/peripheral-blood stem-cell products from breast-cancer patients by negative immunomagnetic separation. Int J Cancer 78: 556-560, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  26. Martin VM, Siewert C, Scharl A, Harms T, Heinze R, Öhl S, Radbruch A, Miltenyi S, Schmitz J: Immunomagnetic enrichment of disseminated epithelial tumor cells from peripheral blood by MACS. Exp Hematol 26: 252-264, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nekarda H, Geß C, Stark M, Mueller JD, Fink U, Schenck U, Siewert JR: Immunocytochemically detected free peritoneal tumour cells (FPTC) are a strong prognostic factor in gastric carcinoma. Br J Cancer 79: 611-619, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  28. Braun S, Pantel K, Müller P, Janni W, Hepp F, Kentenich CRM, Gastroph S, Wischnik A, Dimpfl T, Kindermann G, Riethmüller G, Schlimok G: Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. New Engl J Med 342: 525-533, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cote RJ, Peterson HF, Chaiwun B, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gusterson B, Neville AM, for the International Breast Cancer Study Group: Role of immunohistochemical detection of lymph-node metastases in management of breast cancer. Lancet 354: 896-900, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hermanek P: pTNM and residual tumor classifications: problems of assessment and prognostic significance. World J Surg 19: 184-190, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  31. Braun S, Müller P, Hepp F, Schlimok G, Riethmüller G, Pantel K: Re: micrometastatic breast cancer cells in bone marrow at primary surgery: prognostic value in comparison with nodal status. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 1099-1101, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hohaus S, Funk L, Brehm M, Abdallah A, Murea S, Kaul S, Haas R: Persistence of isolated tumor cells in patients with breast cancer after sequential high-dose therapy with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (abstr 501). Blood 88: 128a (suppl 1), 1996

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hempel D, Müller P, Oruzio D, Ehnle S, Schlimok G: Adoptive immunotherapy with the monoclonal antibody 17-1A to reduce minimal residual disease in breast cancer patients after high-dose chemotherapy (abstr 4454). Blood 90: 379b (suppl 1), 1997

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kasimir-Bauer S, Mayer S, Bojko P, Borquez D, Neumann R, Seeber S: Survival of tumor cells in stem cell pre parations and bone marrow of patients with high-risk or metastatic breast cancer after receiving dose-intensive or high-dose chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 7: 1582-1589, 2001

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine (Cancer Research), West German Cancer Center, Essen, Germany

    S. Kasimir-Bauer & S. Seeber

  2. Center of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Gynecological Oncology, University of Essen, Essen, Germany

    C. Oberhoff, K. Sliwinska & A.E. Schindler

  3. Bayer Vital GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany

    R. Neumann

Authors
  1. S. Kasimir-Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Oberhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Sliwinska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A.E. Schindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Seeber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kasimir-Bauer, S., Oberhoff, C., Sliwinska, K. et al. Evaluation of different methods for the detection of minimal residual disease in blood and bone marrow of patients with primary breast cancer: importance for clinical use?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 69, 123–132 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012288201969

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012288201969

Search

Navigation