4.5 Article

The local immune phenotype influences prognosis in patients with nodal-positive rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 365-370

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03466-0

关键词

Rectal cancer; Neoadjuvant therapy; Immune profile; Survival; Precision oncology; Adjuvant treatment strategies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Indrocution The local immune contexture in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has important prognostic value after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgical resection. In this study, we examined the prognostic role of Indoleamine-2,3-Dioxygenase (IDO1) and infiltrating cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CD8+) according to the nodal stage of LARC patients. Masterial and Methods Expression of IDO1 and CD8 was evaluated through immunohistochemistry in 106 archival tumour tissue samples from patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical resection. The average infiltration of IDO1+ and CD8+ cells was calculated and expressed as total scores as previously described. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to describe overall and disease-free survival. Results In nodal-positive tumours (N+), IDO-positivity was associated with a reduced disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.063) and CD8-positivity with an impaired OS (p = 0.024). Patients with a N+ LARC and a high total IDO1 score showed a clear advantage regarding five-year disease-free survival rates compared with patients with a low total IDO1 score (N+ 5y-DFS IDO1 high: 66.7% vs IDO low: 19%). We also detected better 5-years-OS rates in N+ LARC with a high total CD8 score (N+ 5y-OS CD8 high: 83.3% vs CD8 low: 32.3%). These survival benefits were not evident in patients with N-tumours. Conclusion Analysis of the local CD8 and IDO1 expression influences prognosis in nodal-positive LARC patients after multimodal therapy and may be a helpful tool in specifying individual adjuvant treatment strategies according to different immune profiles.

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