Table 3.

The relationship between EMT-CTCs subtypes and measuring outcomes. * Multivariate analysis.

Study			Preoperative Analysis								Postoperative Analysis
	Outcomes		Schulze, 2013 [20]	Court, 2018 [23]	Ou, 2018 [24]	Qi, 2018 [25]	Chen, 2019 [28]	Bai, 2020 [29]	Qi, 2020 [30]	Lei, 2021 [31]	Wang, 2018 [26]	Xie, 2021 [32]
Epithelial-CTCs
TFS	Median	pos							10
		neg							8
	p-value								0.6745
ER	HR					1.000				1.295
	95% CI					0.993–1.007				0.827–2.026
	p-value					0.970				0.258
OS	Median	pos	15.3
		neg	24.9
	p-value		0.017
TTR RFS	HR				1.446
	95% CI				0.667–3.133
	p-value				0.006
	Means/SD	pos					11.32 ± 2.83
		neg					12.7 ± 3.1
	p-value						0.523
Hybrid-CTCs
TFS	Median	pos						6	7
		neg						7	24.5
	p-value							0.692	0.003
ER	HR									1.068	2.935
	95% CI									0.577–1.976	1.306–6.594
	p-value									0.835	0.009
TTR RFS	HR				2.368
	95% CI				0.808–6.937
	p-value				0.006
	Median	pos			14
		neg			NR
	p-value				0.006
	Means/SD	pos					12.14 ± 2.29
		neg					10.82 ± 4.42
	p-value						0.638”
Mesenchymal-CTCs
PFS TFS	HR			2.16 *
	95% CI			1.38–4.42
	p-value			0.002
	Median	pos						5	5
		neg						13.3	17
	p-value							0.009	<0.0001
ER	HR					1.019 1.019 *				1.182	4.740 3.453 *	4.039
	95% CI					1.010–1.027 1.006–1.032 *				0.764–1.83	2.041–11.01 1.393–8.559 *	0.921–17.703
	p-value					<0.001 0.003 *				0.452	<0.001	0.064
OS	HR			2.21 *
	95% CI			1.38–3.56
	p-value			0.001
TTR RFS	HR			3.14	4.546
	95% CI			1.50–6.57	2.203–9.381
	p-value			0.002	0.006
	Median	pos			6.4
		neg			NR
	p-value			<0.006
	Means/ SD	pos					9.21 ± 3.16
		neg					13.8 ± 2.6
	p-value					0.654