4.7 Article

FOXP3+ regulatory T cells affect the development and progression of hepatocarcinogenesis

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 902-911

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2363

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes represent the host immune response to cancer. CD4(+) CD25(+) FOXP3(+) regulatory T cells (Tregs) suppress the immune reaction. The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinicopathologic significance and roles of Tregs and CD8(+) T cells during hepatocarcinogenesis. Experimental Design: We examined the infiltration of FOXP3(+) Tregs and CD8(+) Tcells in the tumor stroma and nontumorous liver parenchyma using 323 hepatic nodules including precursor lesions, early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and advanced HCC, along with 39 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 59 metastatic liver adenocarcinomas. We did immunohistochemical comparative studies. Results: The prevalence of Tregs was significantly higher in HCC than in the nontumorous liver (P < 0.001). The patient group with a high prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC showed a significantly lower survival rate (P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed that the prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC was an independent prognostic factor. The prevalence of Tregs increased in a stepwise manner (P < 0.001) and that of CD8(+) T cells decreased during the progression of hepatocarcinogenesis (P < 0.001). Regardless of the presence of hepatitis virus infection or histopathologic evidence of hepatitis, the prevalence of Tregs was significantly increased in nontumorous liver bearing primary hepatic tumors. Conclusions: Tregs play a role in controlling the immune response to HCC during the progression of hepatocarcinogenesis. It has been suggested that primary hepatic cancers develop in liver that is immunosuppressed by a marked infiltration of Tregs. A high prevalence of Tregs infiltrating HCC is thought to be an unfavorable prognostic indicator.

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

4.7
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