Circulating endothelial cells in cancer patients do not express tissue factor

rhBMP‑7 suppresses TGF‑β1‑induced endothelial to mesenchymal transition in circulating endothelial cells by regulating Smad5

Endothelial to mesenchymal transition (EndMT) has been confirmed to participate in several cardiovascular diseases. In addition, EndMT of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) contributes to the pathology of musculoskeletal injury. However, little is known about the molecular mechanism of CECs undergoing EndMT. In the present study, human CECs were isolated and identified using anti‑CD146‑coupled magnetic beads. CECs were exposed to transforming growth factor (TGF)‑β1 or TGF‑β1 + recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 7 (rhBMP‑7) or TGF‑β1 + rhBMP‑7 + Smad5 antagonist Jun activation domain‑binding protein 1. Vascular endothelial (VE)‑cadherin and vimentin expression were detected by immunofluorescence staining in TGF‑β1‑treated CECs. The expression levels of von Willebrand factor (vWF), E‑selectin, VE‑cadherin, vimentin, fibronectin, α smooth muscle actin (α‑SMA) and Smad2/3 were detected by reverse transcription‑quantitative PCR or western blot analysis. It was identified that rhBMP‑7 attenuated TGF‑β1‑induced endothelial cell injury. TGF‑β1 could induce the EndMT process in CECs, as confirmed by the co‑expression of VE‑cadherin and vimentin. TGF‑β1 significantly reduced the expression of VE‑cadherin, and induced the expression of vimentin, fibronectin and α‑SMA. rhBMP‑7 reversed the effects of TGF‑β1 on the expression of these genes. Additionally, Smad5 antagonist reversed the effects of rhBMP‑7 on TGF‑β1‑induced EndMT, and upregulated rhBMP‑7‑inhibited Smad2/3 expression. In conclusion, TGF‑β1 could induce EndMT in CECs and rhBMP‑7 may suppress this process by regulating Smad5.

Tumor-Associated Endothelial Cells Promote Tumor Metastasis by Chaperoning Circulating Tumor Cells and Protecting Them from Anoikis

Tumor metastasis is a highly inefficient biological process as millions of tumor cells are released in circulation each day and only a few of them are able to successfully form distal metastatic nodules. This could be due to the fact that most of the epithelial origin cancer cells are anchorage-dependent and undergo rapid anoikis in harsh circulating conditions. A number of studies have shown that in addition to tumor cells, activated endothelial cells are also released into the blood circulation from the primary tumors. However, the precise role of these activated circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in tumor metastasis process is not known. Therefore, we performed a series of experiments to examine if CECs promoted tumor metastasis by chaperoning the tumor cells to distal sites. Our results demonstrate that blood samples from head and neck cancer patients contain significantly higher Bcl-2-positive CECs as compared to healthy volunteers. Technically, it is challenging to know the origin of CECs in patient blood samples, therefore we used an orthotopic SCID mouse model and co-implanted GFP-labeled endothelial cells along with tumor cells. Our results suggest that activated CECs (Bcl-2-positive) were released from primary tumors and they co-migrated with tumor cells to distal sites. Bcl-2 overexpression in endothelial cells (EC-Bcl-2) significantly enhanced adhesion molecule expression and tumor cell binding that was predominantly mediated by E-selectin. In addition, tumor cells bound to EC-Bcl-2 showed a significantly higher anoikis resistance via the activation of Src-FAK pathway. In our in vivo experiments, we observed significantly higher lung metastasis when tumor cells were co-injected with EC-Bcl-2 as compared to EC-VC. E-selectin knockdown in EC-Bcl-2 cells or FAK/FUT3 knockdown in tumor cells significantly reversed EC-Bcl-2-mediated tumor metastasis. Taken together, our results suggest a novel role for CECs in protecting the tumor cells in circulation and chaperoning them to distal sites.

Circulating endothelial cells as a biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients: correlation with clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) have been proposed as a biomarker for the assessment of patients with solid tumors. However, few data are available in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We therefore analyzed the clinical significance of CECs in newly diagnosed NSCLC patients. In addition, we tried to determine the prognostic value of CECs in NSCLC.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 151 newly diagnosed NSCLC patients and 25 healthy volunteers were included. Furthermore, 25 patients with a partial response (n=15) or stable disease (n=10) after treatment were evaluated at recurrence with a mean follow-up of 117 days (range: 47-364 days). CECs were counted using magnetic beads coupled to a specific antibody against CD146.

RESULTS

The pre-treatment CEC count was significantly higher in patients with all histological subtypes of NSCLC than in healthy volunteers (p<0.0001). High baseline CEC counts were significantly correlated with advanced clinical stages (p=0.026), weight loss (p=0.03), and poorly differentiated NSCLC (p=0.02). The amount of CECs increased significantly at recurrence compared with their amount after treatment in 20/21 assessable patients (p=0.0001). Nevertheless, there was no significant correlation between baseline CEC count and median duration of progression-free survival (p=0.402).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased CEC counts were present in patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC compared with healthy subjects. Elevated levels of baseline CECs correlated with high-risk factors in NSCLC. In addition, increased CEC count during follow-up seems to be correlated with recurrence in NSCLC patients.

Dual VEGF/VEGFR inhibition in advanced solid malignancies: clinical effects and pharmacodynamic biomarkers

Our prior phase I study of the combination of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody, bevacizumab, and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor, sunitinib, in advanced solid tumors identified an encouraging response evaluation. An expansion phase of this study was thus undertaken to obtain further safety data, response assessment and characterization of pharmacodynamic biomarkers in melanoma, renal, and adrenal carcinoma patients. Patients with metastatic solid tumors received sunitinib (37.5 mg/d, 4 wk on/2 wk off) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk). Responses were assessed every 2 cycles. Serum levels of angiogenic molecules were measured using ELISA assays. Twenty-two patients were enrolled, including 11 melanoma, 5 renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 5 adrenal cancer, and 1 angiosarcoma. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 15 patients, including hypertension (41%), thrombocytopenia (23%), and fatigue (14%). Three RCC patients, and 1 melanoma patient developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Partial response (PR) occurred in 21% patients, including melanoma (2), adrenal (1), and renal (1) carcinomas. Overall, 6 patients demonstrated some reduction in their tumor burden. Serum VEGF and several other proangiogenic proteins declined over the first 4 wk of treatment whereas the putative VEGF-resistant protein, prokineticin-2, increased over 10-fold. Occurrence of TMA related to dual VEGF/VEGFR inhibition can result from systemic or nephron specific injury even in non-renal malignancies. While the combination of sunitinib and bevacizumab was clinically efficacious in renal cell carcinoma and melanoma, the observance of microangiopathy, even in non-RCC patients, is a significant toxicity that precludes further clinical development.

Levels of a subpopulation of platelets, but not circulating endothelial cells, predict early treatment failure in prostate cancer patients after prostatectomy

Background:

Angiogenesis is one of the hallmarks of cancer driving tumour growth and ultimately metastasis. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and circulating endothelial progenitor (CEPs) cells have been reported as candidate surrogate markers for tumour vascularisation. Our aim was to investigate the potential use of these circulating cells levels as predictors of prostate cancer treatment failure and metastasis.

Methods:

We examined the levels of CD31⁺CD45⁻ cells (CECs) and CD31⁺CD45⁻CD117⁺ (CEPs) in s.c. and orthotopic models of human prostate cancers and correlated measurements with tumour size, volume and microvessel density (MVD). We then performed a prospective cohort study in 164 men with localised prostate cancer undergoing prostatectomy. The CD31⁺CD45⁻, CD31⁺CD45⁻CD146⁺ (CECs) and CD31⁺CD45^intermediateCD133⁺ (CEPs) populations were quantified and subsequently enriched for further characterisation.

Results:

In preclinical models, levels of CD31⁺CD45⁻ cells, but not CEPs, were significantly elevated in tumour-bearing mice and correlated with tumour size, volume and MVD. In our human prospective cohort study, the levels of CD31⁺CD45⁻ cells were significantly higher in men who experienced treatment failure within the first year, and on logistic regression analysis were an independent predictor of treatment failure, whereas neither levels of CECs or CEPs had any prognostic utility. Characterisation of the isolated CD31⁺CD45⁻ cell population revealed an essentially homogenous population of large, immature platelets representing <0.1% of circulating platelets.

Conclusion:

Elevated levels of a distinct subpopulation of circulating platelets were an independent predictor for early biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer patients within the first year from prostatectomy.

Biomimetic postcapillary expansions for enhancing rare blood cell separation on a microfluidic chip

Blood cells naturally auto-segregate in postcapillary venules, with the erythrocytes (red blood cells, RBCs) aggregating near the axis of flow and the nucleated cells (NCs)--which include leukocytes, progenitor cells and, in cancer patients, circulating tumor cells--marginating toward the vessel wall. We have used this principle to design a microfluidic device that extracts nucleated cells (NCs) from whole blood. Fabricated using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) soft lithography, the biomimetic cell extraction device consists of rectangular microchannels that are 20-400 μm wide, 11 μm deep and up to 2 cm long. The key design feature is the use of repeated expansions/contractions of triangular geometry mimicking postcapillary venules, which enhance margination and optimize the extraction. The device operates on unprocessed whole blood and is able to extract 94 ± 4.5% of NCs with 45.75 ± 2.5-fold enrichment in concentration at a rate of 5 nl s(-1). The device eliminates the need to preprocess blood via centrifugation or RBC lysis, and is ready to be implemented as the initial stage of lab-on-a-chip devices that require enriched nucleated cells. The potential downstream applications are numerous, encompassing all preclinical and clinical assays that operate on enriched NC populations and include on-chip flow cytometry (A. Y. Fu et al., Anal. Chem., 2002, 74, 2451-2457; A. Y. Fu et al., Nat. Biotechnol., 1999, 17, 1109-1111), genetic analyses (M. M. Wang et al., Nat. Biotechnol., 2005, 23, 83-87; L. C. Waters et al., Anal. Chem., 1998, 70, 5172-5176) and circulating tumor cell extraction (S. Nagrath et al., Nature, 2007, 450, 1235-1241; S. L. Stott et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2010, 18392-18397; H. K. Lin et al., Clin. Cancer Res., 2010, 16, 5011-5018).

Circulating endothelial cells are an early predictor in renal cell carcinoma for tumor response to sunitinib

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have enriched the therapeutic options in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which frequently induce morphological changes in tumors. However, only little is known about the biological activity of TKI. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) have been associated with endothelial damage and, hence, may serve as a putative marker for the biological activity of TKI. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the predictive value of CEC, monocytes, and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (sVEGFR)-2 in RCC patients receiving sunitinib treatment.

METHODS

Analyses of CEC, monocytes, and sVEGFR-2 were accomplished for twenty-six consecutive patients with metastatic RCC who received treatment with sunitinib (50 mg, 4 wks on 2 wks off schedule) at our institution in 2005 and 2006.

RESULTS

In RCC patients CEC are elevated to 49 ± 44/ml (control 8 ± 8/ml; P = 0.0001). Treatment with sunitinib is associated with an increase in CEC within 28 days of treatment in patients with a Progression free survival (PFS) above the median to 111 ± 61 (P = 0.0109), whereas changes in patients with a PFS below the median remain insignificant 69 ± 61/ml (P = 0.1848). Monocytes and sVEGFR2 are frequently altered upon sunitinib treatment, but fail to correlate with clinical response, defined by PFS above or below the median.

CONCLUSIONS

Sunitinib treatment is associated with an early increase of CEC in responding patients, suggesting superior endothelial cell damage in these patients as a putative predictive biomarker.

Pilot study to relate clinical outcome in pancreatic carcinoma and angiogenic plasma factors/circulating mature/progenitor endothelial cells: Preliminary results

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitors (ECP) play important roles in tumor growth and have been proposed as non-invasive markers of angiogenesis. However, CEC and ECP levels have not been investigated in pancreatic carcinoma patients. Using four-color flow cytometry procedures, we evaluated the count of resting (rCEC) and activated (aCEC) endothelial cells and ECP in the peripheral blood of pancreatic carcinoma patients before and after chemotherapy, consisting of gemcitabine (GEM) alone or in combination with oxaliplatin (OX), or with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We also correlated CEC and ECP levels with plasma levels of relevant angiogenic factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-D, angiopoietin (Angio)-1, and chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL)12, measured by ELISA, and with clinical features of pancreatic cancer. The aCEC, rCEC, ECP, and VEGF-A plasma levels were significantly higher in locally-advanced and metastatic patients than controls. Both ECP and VEGF-A levels correlated positively with disease stage and inversely with patient's overall survival. Measurements after the treatment course showed that VEGF-A plasma concentrations and ECP counts had decreased significantly. In particular, VEGF-A and rCEC were significantly down after treatment with GEM alone or in combination with OX. No significant differences in terms of circulating angiogenic factor or endothelial cell subtype levels were found between responders (patients entering partial remission or with stable disease) and non-responders (patients with progressive disease). The study provides insights into angiogenesis mechanisms in pancreatic carcinoma, for which anti-angiogenic targeting of VEGF-A and ECP could be of interest.

Circulating monocytes expressing CD31: implications for acute and chronic angiogenesis

To identify the roles of various circulating cells (eg, endothelial and/or stem and progenitor cells) in angiogenesis, we parabiosed a wild-type syngeneic mouse with a transgenic syngeneic green fluorescent protein mouse. Following the establishment of a common circulation between these parabionts, we investigated acute (7 to 10 days), subacute (2 to 3 weeks), and chronic (4 to 6 weeks) phases of angiogenesis in wild-type mice using wound healing, implanted gel foam fragments, and subcutaneous tumor assays, respectively. We found that under in vitro conditions, circulating murine monocytes expressed F4/80, CD31, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, but neither CD133 nor von Willebrand factor, whereas murine endothelial cells expressed CD31, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, and von Willebrand factor, but neither CD133 nor F4/80. Immunofluorescence analysis revealed that green fluorescent protein-positive cells in the walls of new vessels in wounds, gel foam blocks, and tumors expressed both F4/80 and CD31, that is, macrophages. Pericytes, cells that express both CD31 and desmin, were found both in the walls of tumor-associated vessels and within tumors. Collectively, these data demonstrate that monocytes (ie, cells that express both CD31 and F4/80) may be recruited to the site of tissue injury and directly contribute to angiogenesis, reaffirming the close relationships between various cell types within the reticuloendothelial system and suggesting possible targets for anticancer treatments.

Elevated levels of circulating endothelial progenitor cells in head and neck cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Measurement of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and progenitor cells (EPCs) has potential as a surrogate marker for monitoring anticancer treatment. This study evaluated the significance of CECs and EPCs in the blood of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

In a prospective trial fresh blood samples from 22 tumor patients and 18 controls were tested using multiparametric flow-cytometry. CECs were defined as CD31(+)/CD146(+) and CD45(-)/7AAD(-). EPCs were defined as CD133(+)/KDR(+) and CD3(-)/CD19(-)/CD33(-)/7AAD(-).

RESULTS

Median levels (min/max) of CECs in the tumor group were 2 (0/5) at the time of diagnosis, 1 (0/5) 1 year after therapy and 2 (0/6) in the control cohort. Median levels of EPCs were 5 (1/41) before and 10 (0/21) after treatment in the tumor group compared to 2 (0/7) in the control cohort (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03). CEC and EPC levels showed no apparent correlation with tumor size and response to radiotherapy after 18 months of observation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study CD133(+)/KDR(+) EPCs were significantly elevated in head and neck tumor patients before and after therapy. Our results warrant further studies on the use of EPCs as a surrogate marker for anticancer therapies in these patients.

The clinical significance of circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood

Tumors launch malignant cells into the circulation continuously. In early stages, the immune surveillance system eliminates these cells from the circulation, but at later times they may persist longer and be detected. The first recorded evidence of the presence of circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood of cancer patients was documented in 1869. Now, modern molecular biologic and cell sorting techniques make their detection and characterization more practicable. This review will consider the methods currently available for their detection and characterization, and the clinical implications of their presence in various malignant conditions.

Circulating endothelial cells in cardiovascular disease

Quantification of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) in peripheral blood is developing as a novel and reproducible method of assessing endothelial damage/dysfunction. The CECs are thought to be mature cells that have detached from the intimal monolayer in response to endothelial injury and are a different cell population to endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). The EPCs are nonleukocytes derived from the bone marrow that are believed to have proliferative potential and may be important in vascular regeneration. Currently accepted methods of CEC quantification include the use of immunomagnetic bead separation (with cell counting under fluorescence microscopy) and flow cytometry. Several recent studies have shown increased numbers of CECs in cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, such as unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and critical limb ischemia, but no change in stable intermittent claudication, essential hypertension, or atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, CEC quantification at 48 h after acute myocardial infarction has been shown to be an accurate predictor of major adverse coronary events and death at both 1 month and 1 year. This article presents an overview of the pathophysiology of CECs in the setting of cardiovascular disease and a brief comparison with EPCs.

Circulating endothelial cells: a novel marker of endothelial damage

Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) were first described over 30 years ago in smears of peripheral blood. Since then, more sophisticated techniques for CEC isolation have become available. In particular, immunomagnetic isolation and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) have been employed with success. We provide a short historical perspective and a comprehensive review on the subject. We review isolation and enumeration of CECs with an emphasis on CD146-driven immunomagnetic isolation and FACS. We describe, in great detail, advantages and pitfalls of both approaches and compare their specificity. Moreover, we provide a comprehensive list of clinical studies in this field and describe the possible clinical use of CECs. We also describe the phenotype of these cells and list typical surface markers. In addition, we review the phenotype of CECs and discuss mechanisms of detachment. We speculate about potential interactions between CECs and other cell subsets. We also describe other serum markers of endothelial damage and compare CECs with these markers. Finally, we highlight differences between circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells. In summary, CECs must now be regarded as a sensitive and specific marker of endothelial damage. We emphasize that use of CECs in a clinical setting is on the horizon and pathogenetic clues may also be obtained.

Circulating endothelial cells and endothelial progenitor cells: two sides of the same coin, or two different coins?

Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are two populations of recently discovered endothelioid cells present in the blood. The former are thought to arise from the intima, the latter from the bone marrow. However, it is becoming clear that these are not in fact homogenous populations (e.g. differing degrees of apoptosis, necrosis and viability, differing expression of monocyte markers) but do in fact represent more than one species of endothelioid cell. Thus whilst originally defined by different criteria (e.g. CD146 by immunobeads, CD34 by flow cytometry) and the perception of independence, there is also growing evidence of some degree of commonality, i.e. some cells co-expressing CD146 and CD34. Furthermore, relationships between these two cells types and, for example, plasma and physiological indicators of vascular damage, and the risk factors for atherosclerosis, suggest a potential role for these cells in the pathophysiology of this disease, possibly as markers. The current document reviews this evidence, presenting a view of some degree of shared ancestry that may have implications for pathophysiology and cell biology.

Circulating endothelial cells, endothelial progenitor cells, and endothelial microparticles in cancer

Cancer, a proliferative disease hallmarked by abnormal cell growth and spread, is largely dependent on tumor neoangiogenesis, with evidence of vascular endothelial dysfunction. Novel ways to assess vascular function in cancer include measuring levels of circulating endothelial cells (CEC). Rare in healthy individuals, increased CEC in peripheral blood reflects significant vascular damage and dysfunction. They have been documented in many human diseases, including different types of cancers. An additional circulating cell population are endothelial progenitor cells (EPC), which have the ability to form endothelial colonies in vitro and may contribute toward vasculogenesis. At present, there is great interest in evaluating the role of EPC as novel markers for tumor angiogenesis and drug therapy monitoring. Recently, exocytic procoagulant endothelial microparticles (EMP) have also been identified. CEC, EPC, and EMP research works may have important clinical implications but are often impeded by methodological issues and a lack of consensus on phenotypic identification of these cells and particles. This review aims to collate existing literature and provide an overview on the current position of CEC, EPC, and EMP in cell biology terms and to identify their significance to clinical medicine, with particular emphasis on relationship with cancer.

Circulating endothelial cells in malignant disease

Cancer is a disease largely dependent on neoangiogenesis. Cancer neoangiogenesis is often disordered and abnormal, with evidence of coexisting vascular endothelial dysfunction. A novel method of assessing vascular endothelial function in cancer is via the quantification of circulating endothelial cells (CEC). Unusual in healthy individuals, their presence in elevated numbers often indicates substantial vascular endothelial perturbation. Another interesting cell type is the endothelial progenitor cell (EPC), whose numbers increase in the presence of vascular damage. Recent research suggests that EPCs have an important role in tumor vasculogenesis. Another marker being investigated in the context of vascular dysfunction and coagulopathy is the endothelial microparticle (EMP). Thus, CECs, EPCs and EMPs may represent potentially novel methods for evaluating the vascular status of cancer patients. This review will summarize the current position of CECs, EPCs and EMPs in cell biology terms, with particular emphasis on their relationship to malignant disease.

Mechanisms of disease: the impact of antithrombotic therapy in cancer patients

Venous thromboembolism is a common complication in patients with malignant disease. It is associated with a systemic hypercoagulable state that is secondary to tumor elaboration of tissue factor (the physiological initiator of blood coagulation), activation of other procoagulant mechanisms and downregulation of anticoagulant mechanisms. The consequent generation of activated coagulation serine protease in the peritumoral environment influences tumor growth, invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis. The use of antithrombotic agents, such as the low-molecular-weight heparins, might influence survival in cancer patients through several mechanisms. These mechanisms include a reduction in the frequency of overt and silent fatal thromboembolic events, interference with the activation of blood coagulation and generation of coagulation serine proteases that affect the tumor phenotype, and direct cellular effects of heparin on both epithelial and endothelial tumor elements.