4.3 Article

Dysregulation of macrophage polarization is associated with the metastatic process in osteosarcoma

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 7, 期 48, 页码 78343-78354

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13055

关键词

osteosarcoma; tumour associated macrophage; osteoprotegerin; Pathology Section

资金

  1. INSERM
  2. Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer (Equipe LIGUE)
  3. Bone Cancer Research Trust, UK [144681]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteosarcoma (OS) is the most common bone sarcoma in adolescents, and has poor prognosis. A vicious cycle is established between OS cells and their microenvironment in order to facilitate the tumor growth and cell spreading. The present work aims to better characterize the tumor microenvironment in OS in order to identify new therapeutic targets relating to metastatic process. Tissue microarrays of pre-chemotherapy OS biopsies were used for characterizing the tumor niche by immunohistochemistry. Parameters studies included: immune cells (M1, M2subtypes of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM); T, B lymphocytes; mast cells), vascularization (endothelial, perivascular cells), OPG, RANKL, and mitotic index. Two groups of patients were defined, 22 localized OS (OS Meta-) and 28 metastatic OS (OS Meta+). The OS Meta-group was characterized by a higher infiltration of INOS+ M1-polarized macrophages and upregulated OPG immunostaining. OS Meta(+) tumors showed a significant increase in CD146(+) cells. INOS+ M1-macrophages were correlated with OPG staining, and negatively with the presence of metastases. CD163(+) M2-macrophages were positively correlated with CD146(+) cells. In multivariate analysis, INOS and OPG were predictive factors for metastasis. An older age, non-metastatic tumor, good response to chemotherapy, and higher macrophage infiltration were significantly associated with better overall survival. TAMs are associated with better overall survival and a dysregulation of M1/M2 polarized-macrophages in favor of M1 subtype was observed in non-metastatic OS.

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

4.3
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