Circulating Endothelial Cell Kinetic in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Who Receive Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Neoangiogenesis has a crucial role in multiple myeloma (MM), and circulating endothelial cells (CECs) contribute to neovascularization by inducing tumor progression and metastasis and by repairing damage to bone marrow vasculature after stem cell transplantation (HSC). We recently proved in a national multicenter study the possibility to reach a high-level standardization in CEC count and analysis based on a polychromatic flow cytometry Lyotube (BD). Our study aimed at assessing the kinetics of CECs in patients with MM undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Au-HSCT). METHODS: Blood samples for analysis were collected at different time points before (T0, T1) and after (T2, T3, T4) Au-HSCT. For each sample, 20 × 106 leukocytes were processed as already described (Lanuti 2016 e 2018) through a multistep procedure. CECs were eventually identified as 7-ADDneg/Syto16pos/CD45neg/CD34pos/CD146pos. RESULTS: Twenty-six MM patients were enrolled in the study. Overall, we observed a constant increase of CECs values from T0 to T3 (day of neutrophil engraftment) followed by decrease at T4 (100 days after transplantation). Using the median value of CECs at T3, we could define a cut-off concentration of 618/mL, with patients with more infective complications having CECs above that value (9/13 vs. 2/13; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: CECs value may be a function of endothelial damage caused by conditioning regimen, as suggested by the increase of their level during the engraftment period. A more severe endothelial damage is reflected by the increase of infective complications in patients with higher CECs value at T3.

A standardized flow cytometry network study for the assessment of circulating endothelial cell physiological ranges.

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) represent a restricted peripheral blood (PB) cell subpopulation with high potential diagnostic value in many endothelium-involving diseases. However, whereas the interest in CEC studies has grown, the standardization level of their detection has not. Here, we undertook the task to align CEC phenotypes and counts, by standardizing a novel flow cytometry approach, within a network of six laboratories. CEC were identified as alive/nucleated/CD45negative/CD34bright/CD146positive events and enumerated in 269 healthy PB samples. Standardization was demonstrated by the achievement of low inter-laboratory Coefficients of Variation (CVL), calculated on the basis of Median Fluorescence Intensity values of the most stable antigens that allowed CEC identification and count (CVL of CD34bright on CEC ~ 30%; CVL of CD45 on Lymphocytes ~ 20%). By aggregating data acquired from all sites, CEC numbers in the healthy population were captured (medianfemale = 9.31 CEC/mL; medianmale = 11.55 CEC/mL). CEC count biological variability and method specificity were finally assessed. Results, obtained on a large population of donors, demonstrate that the established procedure might be adopted as standardized method for CEC analysis in clinical and in research settings, providing a CEC physiological baseline range, useful as starting point for their clinical monitoring in endothelial dysfunctions.

Endothelial progenitor cells, defined by the simultaneous surface expression of VEGFR2 and CD133, are not detectable in healthy peripheral and cord blood.

Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) and their progenitors (EPC) are restricted subpopulations of peripheral blood (PB), cord blood (CB), and bone marrow (BM) cells, involved in the endothelial homeostasis maintenance. Both CEC and EPC are thought to represent potential biomarkers in several clinical conditions involving endothelial turnover/remodeling. Although different flow cytometry methods for CEC and EPC characterization have been published so far, none of them have reached consistent conclusions, therefore consensus guidelines with respect to CEC and EPC identification and quantification need to be established. Here, we have carried out an in depth investigation of CEC and EPC phenotypes in healthy PB, CB and BM samples, by optimizing a reliable polychromatic flow cytometry (PFC) panel. Results showed that the brightness of CD34 expression on healthy PB and CB circulating cells represents a key benchmark for the identification of CEC (CD45neg/CD34bright/CD146pos) respect to the hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) compartment (CD45dim/CD34pos/CD146neg). This approach, combined with a dual-platform counting technique, allowed a sharp CEC enumeration in healthy PB (n = 38), and resulting in consistent CEC counts with previously reported data (median = 11.7 cells/ml). In parallel, by using rigorous PFC conditions, CD34pos/CD45dim/CD133pos/VEGFR2pos EPC were not found in any healthy PB or CB sample, since VEGFR2 expression was never detectable on the surface of CD34pos/CD45dim/CD133pos cells. Notably, the putative EPC phenotype was observed in all analyzed BM samples (n = 12), and the expression of CD146 and VEGFR2, on BM cells, was not restricted to the CD34bright compartment, but also appeared on the HSC surface. Altogether, our findings suggest that the previously reported EPC antigen profile, defined by the simultaneous expression of VEGFR2 and CD133 on the surface of CD45dim/CD34pos cells, should be carefully re-evaluated and further studies should be conducted to redefine EPC features in order to translate CEC and EPC characterization into clinical practice.

Zoledronic acid induces a significant decrease of circulating endothelial cells and circulating endothelial precursor cells in the early prostate cancer neoadjuvant setting.

PURPOSE: Published data demonstrated that zoledronic acid (ZOL) exhibits antiangiogenetic effects. A promising tool for monitoring antiangiogenic therapies is the measurement of circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and circulating endothelial precursor cells (CEPs) in the peripheral blood of patients. Our aim was to investigate the effects of ZOL on levels of CECs and CEPs in localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with a histologic diagnosis of low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled and received an intravenous infusion of ZOL at baseline (T0), 28 days (T28) and 56 days (T56). Blood samples were collected at the following times: T0 (before the first infusion of ZOL), T3 (72 h after the first dose), T28, T56 (both just before the ZOL infusion) and T84 (28 days after the last infusion of ZOL) and CEC/CEP levels were directly quantified by flow cytometry at all these time points. RESULTS: Our analyses highlighted a significant reduction of mean percentage of CECs and CEPs after initiation of ZOL treatment [p = 0.014 (at day 3) and p = 0.012 (at day 84), respectively]. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results demonstrate that ZOL could exert an antiangiogenic effect in early prostate cancer through CEP and CEC modulation.