4.8 Review

Immune infiltration in human tumors: a prognostic factor that should not be ignored

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1093-1102

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/onc.2009.416

关键词

immune response; prognosis; colorectal cancer

资金

  1. Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (ARC)
  2. INSERM
  3. Action Concertee Incitative ACI I MPBio (Universite Paris Descartes)
  4. National Cancer Institute (INCa)
  5. Canceropole Ile de France
  6. Ville de Paris, Immucan
  7. European Commission [202230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The natural history of a tumor includes phases of 'in situ' growth, invasion, extravasation and metastasis. During these phases, tumor cells interact with their microenvironment and are influenced by signals coming from stromal, endothelial, inflammatory and immune cells. Indeed, tumors are often infiltrated by various numbers of lymphocytes, macrophages or mast cells. It is generally believed that the latter produce factors that maintain chronic inflammation and promote tumor growth, whereas lymphocytes may control cancer outcome, as evidenced in mouse models. In this study, we analyze data from large cohorts of human tumors, clearly establishing that infiltration of the primary tumor by memory T cells, particularly of the Th1 and cytotoxic types, is the strongest prognostic factor in terms of freedom from disease and overall survival at all stages of clinical disease. We review data suggesting that tertiary lymphoid structures adjacent to tumors and composed of mature dendritic cells (T and B cells organized as germinal centers) may be the site of an antitumor reaction. We propose an immune scoring based on the type, density and location of lymphocyte infiltrates as a novel prognostic factor for use in addition to tumor node metastasis staging to predict disease-free survival and to aid in decisions regarding adjuvant therapies in early stage human cancers. Oncogene (2010) 29, 1093-1102; doi: 10.1038/onc.2009.416; published online 30 November 2009

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

4.8
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