4.5 Article

Circulating Myeloid Dendritic Cells as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Who Have Undergone Surgical Resection

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 173, 期 2, 页码 299-308

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.09.027

关键词

DC in the pancreatic cancer tissue; distribution of DC in the human body; survival analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Pancreatic cancer is a malignant neoplasm with poor prognosis that might be associated with defective immune function. We aimed to determine the influence on survival of circulating myeloid dendritic cells (c-m-DCs), circulating lymphoid DCs (c-l-DCs), and DCs within the tumor tissue in patients with pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods. Between December 2001 and June 2006, of a total of 110 patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, 42 underwent pancreatectomy, and 68 had unresectable disease. Numbers of c-m-DCs and c-l-DCs were assessed by flow cytometry, and DCs in the tumor tissue by immunohistochemical staining with anti-fascin mAb. Results. The percentage of the c-m-DCs subset in pancreatic cancer patients was significantly lower than in healthy volunteers, and the similar finding was observed between patients who underwent surgical resection and non-resection. Patients with a high percentage of c-m-DCs or with many DCs accumulated in the cancer tissue survived longer than patients with a low percentage or low number in peripheral blood or the tumor, respectively. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between c-m-DCs within peripheral blood mononuclear cells and the number of DCs per field in the cancer tissue. Conclusions. Preoperative c-m-DCs levels in the PBMC of patients with pancreatic cancer and DCs counts in the cancer tissue can be a prognostic factor after surgical resection. Modulating the distribution of DCs may be an effective therapy in pancreatic cancer patients with a dismal prognosis. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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