4.6 Article

T-regulatory lymphocytes in peripheral blood of gastric and colorectal cancer patients

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 343-348

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i3.343

关键词

CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) cells; T regulatory cells; Peripheral blood; Gastric cancer; Colorectal cancer

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland [2P05C 001 29, K/PBW/000421]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To assess the absolute number of T-regulatory cells (Tregs; CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+)) in the peripheral blood of gastric and colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We enrolled 70 cancer patients (33 gastric cancer, 37 colorectal cancer) and 17 healthy volunteers. The CD3(+)CD4(+) lymphocytes and CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) Tregs in the peripheral blood were analyzed with flow cytometry. The absolute numbers of Tregs were calculated based on the CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) cells percentage of CD3(+)CD4(+) cells and the absolute numbers of CD3(+)CD4(+) cells per microliter. RESULTS: The mean number of CD4(+)CD25(+)Foxp3(+) cells per microliter in colorectal cancer patients was 15.7 (SD: 21.8), for gastric cancer patients 12.2 (SD: 14.3), and for controls 17.5 (SD: 11.4). The absolute number of Tregs was significantly lower in gastric cancer patients than in controls (P = 0.026). There was no statistically significant difference for gastric vs colorectal cancer or colorectal cancer vs controls. The absolute number of Tregs was also significantly depressed in N+ vs N- cancer patients [22.0 (27.7) vs 10.1 (9.0), P = 0.013], and in the subgroup of gastric cancer patients [30.3 (27.6) vs 9.6 (8.0), P = 0.003]. No statistical difference was observed in the proportion of Tregs in the CD4(+) population between the groups. CONCLUSION: The absolute number of Tregs in peripheral blood of gastric cancer but not colorectal cancer patients was significantly decreased in comparison with that in healthy controls. (C) 2011 Baishideng. 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

4.6
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