4.6 Article

Tumor-Associated Macrophages Provide Significant Prognostic Information in Urothelial Bladder Cancer

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133552

关键词

-

资金

  1. Juselius Foundation
  2. Cancer Society of Finland
  3. Finnish Medical Foundation
  4. Kirsti and Tor Johanssons Heart and Cancer Foundation
  5. Orion-Farmos
  6. Instrumentariumin tiedesaatio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is an important feature of carcinogenesis. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) can be associated with either poor or improved prognosis, depending on their properties and polarization. Current knowledge of the prognostic significance of TAMs in bladder cancer is limited and was investigated in this study. We analyzed 184 urothelial bladder cancer patients undergoing transurethral resection of a bladder tumor or radical cystectomy. CD68 (pan-macrophage marker), MAC387 (polarized towards type 1 macrophages), and CLEVER-1/Stabilin-1 (type 2 macrophages and lymphatic/blood vessels) were detected immunohistochemically. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. High macrophage counts associated with a higher pT category and grade. Among patients undergoing transurethral resection, all studied markers apart from CLEVER-1/Stabilin-1 were associated with increased risk of progression and poorer disease-specific and overall survival in univariate analyses. High levels of two macrophage markers (CD68/MAC387(+/+) or CD68/CLEVER-1(+/+) groups) had an independent prognostic role after transurethral resection in multivariate analyses. In the cystectomy cohort, MAC387, alone and in combination with CD68, was associated with poorer survival in univariate analyses, but none of the markers were independent predictors of outcome in multivariate analyses. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that macrophage phenotypes provide significant independent prognostic information, particularly in bladder cancers undergoing transurethral resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据