4.6 Article

Prognostic impact of platelet-derived growth factors in non-small cell lung cancer tumor and stromal cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 3, 期 9, 页码 963-970

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181834f52

关键词

NSCLC; angiogenesis; PDGFs; PDGFRs; stroma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In tumor angiogenesis there is a complex interplay between endothelial. stromal, and tumor cells (neoplastic epithelial cells). Platelet-derived growth factors (PDGFs) and receptors (PDGFRs) are pivotal in this interaction, and important targets in novel antiangiogenic therapies. This Study investigates the prognostic impact of these molecular markers in tumor cells and tumor stroma of resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors. Methods: Tumor tissue samples from 335 resected patients with stage I to IIIA NSCLC were obtained and tissue microarrays were constructed from duplicate cores Of tumor cells and tumor-related stroma from each specimen. Immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate the expression of the Molecular markers PDGF-A, -B, -C, and -D and PDGFR-alpha and -beta. Results: In univariate analyses, high tumor cell expression of PDGF-B (p = 0.001). PDGF-C (p = 0.01), and PDGFR-alpha (p = 0.026) were negative prognostic indicators for disease-specific survival. In tumor stroma, high expression of PDGF-A (p = 0.009) PDGF-B (p = 0.04), PDGF-D (p = 0.019), and PDGFR-alpha (p = 0.019) correlated with good prognosis. In multivariate analyses, high tumor cell PDGF-B (p = 0.001) and PDGFR-alpha (p = 0.047) expression were independent negative prognostic factors for disease-specific survival, whereas in stromal cells high PDGF-A) = 0.001) expression had ail independent positive survival impact. Conclusion: Our results indicate PDGF-B and PDGFR-alpha inhibition as an interesting approach in NSCLC treatment, but also demonstrates the importance of understanding the Cellular crosstalk between endothelial, stromal, and tumor cells when targeting PDGF markers.

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

4.6
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