4.4 Article

M2-macrophage infiltration and macrophage traits of tumor cells in urinary bladder cancer

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.11.020

Keywords

Bladder cancer; Tumor-associated macrophages; Lymph node metastasis; Ki-67; CD163; Macrophage traits in tumor cells

Funding

  1. FoU research grant from the County Council of Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden
  2. ALF research grant from the County Council of Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) constitute a subset of nonneoplastic cells in tumor stroma and influence cancer progression in solid tumors. The clinical significance of TAMs in urinary bladder cancer (UBC) is controversial. Methods: We prospectively studied 103 patients with stage pT1 T4 UBC treated with cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Tumor sections were immunostained with M2-specific macrophage marker CD163 and proliferation marker Ki-67. The expression of these markers in cancer cells as well as macrophage infiltration (MI) in tumor stroma was analyzed in relation to clinical data and outcome. Results: The mean rate of CD163 and Ki-67 expressed by cancer cells were 35% and 78%, respectively. With borderline significance, MI was associated with lower rate of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.06). CD163 expression in cancer cells was proportional to MI (P < 0.014). Patients with CD163-positive tumors and strong MI had significantly longer cancer-specific survival (CSS) (76 months), compared to patient with CD163-positive tumors and weak MI (28 months) (P = 0.02). Conclusions: M2-specific MI tends to be inversely correlated with LN metastasis and improved CSS in UBC. MI might have protective impact in CD163-positive tumors. Expression of CD163 in cancer cells is significantly correlated with MI and might have a tumor promoting impact. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available