Dissimilar populations of EpСam-positive cells in ascitic fluid of ovarian cancer patients: a relationship with the degree of carcinomatosis

 Background. Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is one of the most unfavorable factors of ovarian cancer progression. It is often accompanied by accumulation of fluid in the abdominal cavity, which is called ascites. However, prognostic factors associated with malignant ascites are not well understood.

The aim of this study was to evaluate dissimilar populations of EpCAM-positive cells in ascitic fluid and their relationship with the presence of invasive peritoneal implants and the prevalence of carcinomatosis on the Predictive Index Value (PIV) scale in ovarian cancer patients.

Materials and methods. The prospective study included 22 patients aged 36–76 years with newly diagnosed FIGO stage Ic–IV ovarian cancer, who were admitted for treatment to Cancer Research Institute of Tomsk NRMC. The study material included EDTA-stabilized ascitic fluid sampled during laparoscopy. Various populations of ascites tumor cells were identified by laser multicolor flow cytometry. The degree of carcinomatosis was determined according to the PIV scale.

Results. The study identified twelve populations of EpCAM-positive cells in the ascitic fluid of ovarian cancer patients. Epcam+CD45-CD44-CD24+CD133-Ncadherin+ cells (r = 0.58; p = 0.004) and atypical (hybrid) EpCam+CD45+CD44+CD24+/-CD133+/-Ncadherin+/- cells (r = = 0.51; р = 0.01) had a positive correlation with the PIV index.

Conclusion. The obtained results show a high degree of heterogeneity of tumor cells in the ascitic fluid of ovarian cancer patients. Identified atypical (hybrid) forms of EpCam-positive cells are of great interest for cell biology and require further investigation. 

1. Виллерт А.Б., Коломиец Л.А., Юнусова Н.В., Иванова А.А. Асцит как предмет исследований при раке яичников. Сибирский онкологический журнал. 2019; 18 (1): 116–123. DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2019-18-1-116-123.

2. Weinberg R.A. Coevolution in the tumor microenvironment. Nat. Genet. 2008; 40: 494–495. DOI: 10.1038/ng0508-494.

3. Hyler A.R., Baudoin N.C., Brown M.S., Stremler M.A., Cimini D., Davalos R.V., Schmelz, E.M. Fluid shear stress impacts ovarian cancer cell viability, subcellular organization, and promotes genomic instability. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (3): e0194170. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.

4. Кайгородова Е.В., Федулова Н.В., Очиров М.О., Дьяков Д.А., Молчанов С.В., Часовских Н.Ю. Различные популяции опухолевых клеток в асцитической жидкости больных раком яичников. Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2020; 19 (1): 50–59. DOI: 10.20538/1682-0363-2020-1-50-58.

5. Kaigorodova E.V., Savelieva O.E., Tashireva L.A., Tarabanovskaya N.A., Simolina E.I., Denisov E.V., Slonimskaya E.M., Choynzonov E.L., Perelmuter V.M. Heterogeneity of circulating tumor cells in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. Molecules. 2018; 23 (4): 727–737. DOI: 10.3390/molecules23040727.

6. Tayama S., Motohara T., Narantuya D., Li C., Fujimoto K., Sakaguchi I., Tashiro H., Saya H., Nagano O., Katabuchi H.The impact of EpCAM expression on response to chemotherapy and clinical outcomes in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2017; 8 (27): 44312–44325. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17871.

7. Zheng J., Zhao S., Yu X., Huang S., Liu H.Y. Simultaneous targeting of CD44 and EpCAM with a bispecific aptamer effectively inhibits intraperitoneal ovarian cancer growth. Theranostics. 2017; 7 (5): 373–1388. DOI: 10.7150/thno.17826.

8. Nakamura K., Terai Y., Tanabe A., Ono Y.J., Hayashi M., Maeda K., Fujiwara S., Ashihara K., Nakamura M., Tanaka Y. et al. CD24 expression is a marker for predicting clinical outcome and regulates the epithelial-mesenchymal transition in ovarian cancer via both the Akt and ERK pathways. Oncol. Rep. 2017; 37 (6): 3189–3200. DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5583.

9. Mrozik K.M., Blaschuk O.W., Cheong C.M., Zannettino A.C., Vandyke W.K. N-cadherin in cancer metastasis, its emerging role in haematological malignancies and potential as a therapeutic target in cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18 (1): 939. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4845-0.

10. Glumac P.M., LeBeau A.M. The role of CD133 in cancer: A concise review. Clin. Transl. Med. 2018; 7 (1): 18. DOI: 10.1186/s40169-018-0198-1.

11. Fagotti A., Ferrandina G., Fanfani F., Ercoli A., Lorusso D., Rossi M., Scambia G. A laparoscopy-based score to predict surgical outcome in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: A pilot study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2006; 13 (8): 1156–1161.

12. Wei X., Dombkowski D., Meirelles K., Pieretti-Vanmarcke R., Szotek P.P., Chang H.L., Preffer F.I., Mueller P.R., Teixeira J., MacLaughlin D.T. et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance preferentially inhibits stem/progenitors in human ovarian cancer cell lines compared with chemotherapeutics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2010; 107 (44): 18874–18879. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1012667107.

13. Gao M.Q., Choi Y.P., Kang S., Youn J.H., Cho N.H. CD24+ cells from hierarchically organized ovarian cancer are enriched in cancer stem cells. Oncogene. 2010; 29 (18): 2672–2680. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2010.35.

14. Burgos-Ojeda D., Rueda B.R., Buckanovich R.J. Ovarian cancer stem cell markers: Prognostic and therapeutic implications. Cancer Lett. 2012; 322 (1): 1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.02.002.

15. Burgos-Ojeda D., Wu R., McLean K., Chen Y.C., Talpaz M., Yoon E., Cho K.R., Buckanovich R.J. CD24+ Ovarian cancer cells are enriched for cancer-initiating cells and dependent on jak2 signaling for growth and metastasis. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2015; 14 (7): 1717–1727. DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0607.

16. Gast C.E., Silk A.D., Zarour L. et al. Cell fusion potentiates tumor heterogeneity and reveals circulating hybrid cells that correlate with stage and survival. Sci. Adv. 2018; 4 (9): e7828. Published 2018 Sept. 12. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat7828.

17. Carter A. Cell fusion theory: can it explain what triggers metastasis? J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2008; 100 (18): 1279–1281. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn336.

18. Larizza L., Schirrmacher V., Pflüger E. Acquisition of high metastatic capacity after in vitro fusion of a nonmetastatic tumor line with a bone marrow-derived macrophage. J. Exp. Med. 1984; 160 (5): 1579–1584. DOI: 10.1084/jem.160.5.1579.

19. Ramakrishnan M., Mathur S.R., Mukhopadhyay A. Fusion-derived epithelial cancer cells express hematopoietic markers and contribute to stem cell and migratory phenotype in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2013; 73 (17): 5360–5370. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0896.

20. Powell A.E., Anderson E.C., Davies P.S. et al. Fusion between Intestinal epithelial cells and macrophages in a cancer context results in nuclear reprogramming. Cancer Res. 2011; 71 (4): 1497–1505. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3223.

21. Klymenko Y., Johnson J., Bos B., Lombard R., Campbell L., Loughran E., Stack M.S. Heterogeneous cadherin expression and multicellular aggregate dynamics in ovarian cancer dissemination. Neoplasia. 2017; 19 (7): 549–563. DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.04.002.

22. Vizzielli G., Costantini B., Tortorella L., Pitruzzella I., Gallotta V., Fanfani F., Gueli Alletti S., Cosentino F., Nero C., Scambia G. et al. A laparoscopic risk-adjusted model to predict major complications after primary debulking surgery in ovarian cancer: A single-institution assessment. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016; 142 (1): 19–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.020.

23. Feng Z., Wen H., Jiang Z., Liu S., Ju X., Chen X., Xia L., Xu J., Bi R., Wu X. A triage strategy in advanced ovarian cancer management based on multiple predictive models for R0 resection: A prospective cohort study. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2018; 29 (5): e65. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e65.

24. Rutten M.J., Van Meurs H.S., Van De Vrie R., Naaktgeboren C.A., Fons G., Opmeer B.C., Spijkerboer A., Bossuyt P.M., Kenter G.G., Buist M.R. et al. Laparoscopy to predict the result of primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017; 35 (6): 613–621. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2962.