4.4 Article

Expression of CXCR3 on mononuclear cells and CXCR3 ligands in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in response to systemic IL-2 therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 417-424

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e31802e089a

关键词

chemokines; renal cell carcinoma; cytokine therapy

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50CA90388, CA87879] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemokines play an important role in regulating tumor-mediated immunity, angiogenesis, and tumor cell inetastasis. The chemokine receptor, CXCR3, is expressed in various human tumors, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). CXCR3 is also associated with antiangiogenic effects in multiple tumors, and we hypothesized that interleukin-2 (IL-2) treatment of patients with metastatic clear cell RCC could augment CXCR3 levels on circulating mononuclear cells and correlate to outcome. The kinetics of CXCR3 expression on circulating mononuclear cells and its ligands (CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11) in plasma were evaluated in 20 patients with metastatic clear cell RCC during cycles I and 2 of high dose IL-2 therapy. Subpopulations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were studied by dual color flow cytometry. Angiogenic ligands were measured and an angiogenic ratio was calculated prehigh and posthigh dose IL-2. CXCR3 expression on PBMC at baseline was similar in patients with metastatic RCC and normal controls. PBMC CXCR3 expression increased during treatment, and peaked during cycle 2. Plasma from RCC patients displayed similar baseline levels of CXCR3 ligands to normal controls. however, the angiogenic ratio was significantly increased in patients with metastatic RCC at baseline. Plasma levels of CXCR3 ligands increased during treatment, resulting in a reversal in the angiogenic ratio to favor angiostatic chemokines. The CXCR3/CXCR3 ligand biologic axis and angiogenic ratio may be important biomarkers in clear cell RCC patients who are undergoing high dose IL-2 therapy.

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