4.4 Article

Cancer-associated fibroblasts are an infrequent finding in the microenvironment of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia-associated squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 353-358

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jop.12503

关键词

alpha-smooth muscle actin; cancer-associated fibroblasts; microenvironment; oral squamous cell carcinoma; proliferative verrucous leukoplakia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundCancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are generally associated with negative prognostic factors. This study compares the clinicopathologic impact of CAFs in oral squamous cell carcinoma in patients with a history of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia (p-scca) and patients with conventional squamous cell carcinoma of the buccal mucosa, gingiva, and palate (c-scca). MethodsA retrospective clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical analysis of 97 tumor specimens from 78 patients (13 patients with proliferative verrucous leukoplakia-associated squamous cell carcinoma (n = 32) and conventional squamous cell carcinoma from the buccal mucosa, gingiva, and palate (n = 65) was conducted. Immunostaining with anti-alpha-smooth muscle actin (-SMA) antibody was used to evaluate the presence of CAFs. Results-SMA expression was an infrequent finding in p-scca and seen in only 6% of p-scca compared to 40% of c-scca (P < 0.0004). In the c-scca subgroup, -SMA significantly correlated with tumor size (T) (P = 0.009), tumor thickness (P < 0.0009), perineural invasion (P = 0.009), and microscopic grade (P = 0.018). ConclusionsThe presence of CAFs was an infrequent finding in our p-scca cohort which may contribute to its seemingly slower growing and less invasive growth pattern. In the cohort of c-scca patients, higher levels of CAFs correlated with microscopic invasiveness, tumor size, and perineural invasion. Practically, these are important observations as targeting strategies are being developed to combat carcinoma types where CAFs significance has been validated.

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

4.4
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