4.7 Article

The expression and prognostic impact of CXC-chemokines in stage II and III colorectal cancer epithelial and stromal tissue

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 480-487

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606055

关键词

CXCL1; CXCL8; CXCR1; CXCR2; colorectal cancer

类别

资金

  1. Public Health Agency [EAT/3472/06] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The CXC-chemokine expression is linked with colorectal cancer (CRC) progression but their significance in resected CRC is unclear. We explored the prognostic impact of such expression in stage II and III CRC. METHODS: Tissue microarrays were constructed from stage II and III CRC biopsies (n = 254), and the expression of CXCL1 and CXCL8, and their receptors CXCR1 and CXCR2, in malignant and adjacent normal tissue was graded by immunohistochemistry and was correlated with prognostic factors. RESULTS: Expression of CXCL1, CXCR1 and CXCR2 was elevated in tumour epithelium relative to normal adjacent tissue (P < 0.001). CXCL8 expression was detectable in the peritumoural inflammatory infiltrate. There was no overall association between CXCL1, CXCR1 or CXCR2 expression and prognostic endpoints; however, univariate subgroup survival analysis demonstrated an inverse association between CXCL1 and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in stage III patients (P = 0.041). The CXCL8 positivity in the tumour infiltrate, however, correlated with earlier disease stage (P < 0.001) and improved relapse-free survival across the cohort (P < 0.001). Disease stage (P < 0.001) and tumour infiltrate CXCL8 positivity (P = 0.007) were associated with enhanced RFS in multivariate Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Autocrine CXC-chemokine signalling may have adverse prognostic effects in early CRC. Conversely, CXCL8 positivity within the immune infiltrate may have good prognostic significance. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 480-487. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606055 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

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

4.7
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