4.5 Article

Vasculogenic mimicry is associated with increased tumor-infiltrating neutrophil and poor outcome in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 2923-2930

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S135477

关键词

E-cadherin; CD66b; cancer; CD34/PAS double staining; prognosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672974, 81602719]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Vasculogenic mimicry (VM) is known to be a mechanism to nourish the tumor, but little is known about its prognostic significance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We characterized the predictive relevance of VM expression and tumor-infiltrating neutrophil (TIN) density in patients with resectable ESCC. Methods: We retrospectively collected clinicopathologic characteristics of 117 esophageal cancer (EC) patients undergoing complete resection and without preoperative therapy. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect the expression of E-cadherin and CD66b. CD34/periodic acid-schiff (PAS) double staining was used to detect the expression of VM. Results: VM expression was observed in 56 (47.9%) patients. VM was negatively correlated with E-cadherin (correlation coefficient=-0.364, P<0.001) and was positively correlated with infiltration of CD66b neutrophil (correlation coefficient =0.421, P<0.001). VM and CD66b(+) neutrophil infiltration are important markers for poor overall survival and disease-free survival. Multivariate analysis showed that VM, CD66b(+) neutrophil infiltration, pathologic tumor node metastasis (TNM) (pTNM) stage, and tumor differentiation are significant independent prognostic predictors in ECs (P=0.001, 0.025, 0.001, 0.011, respectively). VM expression is identified in similar to 7.9% of ESCC, and it is associated with poor outcome and increased TIN. Conclusion: TIN is an important factor for VM formation. Therefore, studies of invasive ability of EC in patients with VM could supply significant information for therapeutic strategy.

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