Demonstrates enhanced CTC enrichment in blood using phase regulation in a microfluidic design, implying improved diagnostic utility.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are valuable liquid-biopsy biomarkers, yet their extreme rarity makes high-purity, high-throughput enrichment challenging. In spiral inertial microfluidics, high cell loading induces long-range hydrodynamic interactions that broaden the focused blood-cell stream; consequently, a subpopulation completes the ~0.5 and ~1.0 Dean-cycle migrations with a phase delay, compressing the CTC–blood cell gap and degrading purity. Here we propose a Dean-cycle phase-regulated double-spiral design informed by this phenomenon. This design aims to mitigate the stream-broadening effect by boosting the Dean number during the first half-cycle to promote synchronized blood-cell migration and shifting the CTC equilibrium position near one full cycle to further widen the CTC–blood cell separation. We implement this strategy in a second-generation double-spiral microfluidic chip (SDMC) and scale it to a four-channel parallel array (ASDMC). Under optimized conditions, ASDMC processes diluted whole blood (hematocrit = 4%) without the need for red blood cell (RBC) lysis or antibody labeling, achieving a sample throughput of 1200 μL·min−1. Specifically, it exhibits a mean recovery rate of 98.8% across three spiked tumor cell lines (MCF-7, PC-9, and Mahlavu) and a mean white blood cell (WBC) depletion efficiency of 93.3%. In a pilot clinical testing of 20 patients (NSCLC and HCC), enriched fractions enabled immunofluorescence identification of CK+CD45−DAPI+ CTCs, with an exploratory trend of increasing CTC counts with advanced disease stage (4–34 cells·mL−1). These results describe a scalable, label-free platform, and the observed purification performance aligns with our proposed mechanism: Dean-cycle phase regulation to mitigate blood-cell migration lag. Our findings support further technical validation and clinical assessment in larger cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: