4.4 Article

Effects of transarterial chemoembolization on the immunological function of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2021.12815

关键词

immune function; hepatocellular carcinoma; transarterial chemoembolization; programmed cell death protein 1; programmed cell death 1 ligand 1

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that TACE treatment led to a decrease in CD4(+)/CD8(+) cell ratio and an increase in PD1 gene expression in HCC patients. Expression levels of PD1 and PD-L1 were associated with TACE treatment outcomes and patient prognosis.
The present study aimed to investigate the effects of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) on the immune function of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 114 patients with HCC were selected and their peripheral blood was collected before and 1 month after TACE treatment. Flow cytometry and reverse transcription-quantitative PCR were performed to analyze the changes in immune function in patients before and after treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for survival analysis. The programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) expression before TACE treatment were significantly higher in patients with poor TACE response compared with those patients with well response. Higher PD-L1 mRNA expression in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells after TACE predicted a superior prognosis. After TACE treatment, the proportion of CD4(+)/CD8(+) cells were decreased while the expression levels of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) were significantly increased. To conclude, TACE could reduce the proportion of CD4(+)/CD8(+) cells and improve the mRNA expression levels of PD1 in patients with HCC. The expression levels of PD1 and PD-L1 were closely related to the therapeutic effect of TACE and the prognosis of patients with HCC. TACE combined with immunotherapy may have potential clinical value for patients with HCC.

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

4.4
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