4.3 Article

Expression of costimulatory molecules B7-H1, B7-H4 and Foxp3+ Tregs in gastric cancer and its clinical significance

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 273-281

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-014-0701-7

关键词

Gastric cancer; B7-H1; B7-H4; Foxp3; Tregs; Costimulatory molecule

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81171653, 30972703]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2011246, BK2011247]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune escape plays an important role in tumor progression. In the present study, the expression of B7-H1, B7-H4 and Foxp3 involved in immune escape in gastric carcinoma was investigated and the corresponding clinical significance was evaluated. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect the expression of B7-H1, B7-H4 and Foxp3 in 100 gastric cancer specimens, and 30 paracarcinoma tissues were used as the control. Both B7-H1 and B7-H4 showed high expression levels in gastric cancer tissues (65.0 and 71.0 %, respectively), and the expressions of B7-H1 and B7-H4 were positively correlated with the depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage (P < 0.05). The number of Foxp3(+) Tregs was much higher in gastric cancer tissues than control tissues, which was positively correlated with lymph node metastasis (P < 0.05). Similarly, a positive correlation between B7-H1 or B7-H4 expression and the number of Foxp3(+) Tregs was observed. The median overall survival rate of patients with high expression of B7-H1, B7-H4 and Foxp3 was significantly poorer than that of patients with low expression of these proteins (P < 0.05). Cox regression multivariate analysis confirmed that lymph node metastasis, AJCC stage, and B7-H1 and Foxp3 overexpression were independent prognostic factors. B7-H1, B7-H4 and Foxp3 were overexpressed in gastric cancer tissues. B7-H1 and Foxp3 are negative prognostic factors for patients with gastric cancer.

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

4.3
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