4.5 Review

A reappraisal of macrophage polarization in glioblastoma: Histopathological and immunohistochemical findings and review of the literature

期刊

PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
卷 212, 期 6, 页码 491-499

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2016.02.020

关键词

Glioblastoma multiforme; Tumor-associated macrophages; Macrophage polarization; Immunosuppression; CD163; CD68

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The survival rate in glioblastoma multiforme patients has scarcely improved in the last decades; however, many new therapeutic strategies have been theorized or developed for these neoplasias. Recently, the inverse correlation observed between patient prognosis and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) density in solid tumors has encouraged the development of anti-tumor strategies aiming to target TAMs. As expected, TAMs polarization is influenced by both macrophage localization and tumor microenvironment signals, resulting in a more complex scenario than the simple M1/M2 activation status. Macrophage polarization in glioblastoma has not yet been fully elucidated, and most results have been obtained in experimental non-human settings, with some apparent contradiction. The authors performed a histopathological and immunohistochemical study of 37 cases of glioblastoma in order to characterize the M1 and M2 macrophage populations within TAMs. A high prevalence of CD163+ M2-polarized macrophages was detected in this cohort, whereas iNOS+ macrophages were rarely found. The down regulation of CD68 expression in microglia/macrophage infiltrating glioblastomas is also reported for the first time. Such a finding is associated with a specific location of TAMs within the lesion, as confirmed by the fact that CD68 staining was lower than CD163, mainly in perivascular areas. The authors discuss the recent literature about the global scenario of macrophage plasticity and polarization in glioblastoma, and suggest some pivotal points for therapeutic applications. (C) 2016 Elsevier GmbH. 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

4.5
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