4.7 Article

Pancreatic adenocarcinomas with mature blood vessels have better overall survival

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37909-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01CA160688]
  2. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [P30CA016056]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is known for its hypovascularity. Bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic drug, added to standard chemotherapy demonstrated no improvement in outcome for PDAC. Therefore, we hypothesized that increased vascularity may be associated with improved outcomes in PDAC possibly due to better delivery of tumor specific immune cells. To test this hypothesis, PDAC patients were classified into either high or low CD31 expression groups utilizing mRNA expression from RNA-sequence data in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) pancreatic cancer cohort. High expression of CD31, which indicates presence of more vascular endothelial cells, was associated with significantly better OS (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that residual tumor (R1, 2; p = 0.026) and CD31 low expression (p = 0.007) were the only independent predictors that negatively impacted OS. Vascular stability as well as immune response related pathways were significantly upregulated in the CD31 high expressing tumors. Furthermore, there were higher proportions of anti-cancer immune cells infiltration, including activated memory CD4+ T cells (p = 0.038), CD8+ T cells (p = 0.027), gamma-delta T cells (p < 0.001) as well as naive B cells (p = 0.006), whereas lower proportions of regulatory T cell fractions (p = 0.009), which induce an immune tolerant microenvironment, in the CD31 high expressing tumors. These findings imply that stable vessels supply anti-cancer immune cells, which are at least partially responsible for better OS in the CD31 high expressing tumors. In conclusion, CD31 high expressing PDACs have better OS, which may be due to stable vessels that supply anti-cancer immune cells.

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

4.7
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