4.7 Article

Intratumoral CD8+ T lymphocytes as a prognostic factor of survival in endometrial carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 13, 页码 4450-4456

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-0732-3

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: CTLs are a prominent immune component infiltrating many solid tumors. These cells are considered to be a manifestation of host-immune response to the tumor; however, their prognostic significance remains a subject of considerable debate. The objective of this study was to evaluate the distribution pattern and prognostic value of CD8(+) T cells in endometrial carcinoma. Experimental Design: We studied 90 cases of endometrial carcinoma, including 75 endometrioid and 15 papillary serous carcinomas. Immunohistochemical staining for CD8 and granzyme B was performed on paraffin-embedded sections. The number of immunohistochemically staining CD8(+) T cells was enumerated in the following four regions: lymphocytes infiltrating the tumor epithelium at the invasive border, within the underlying tumor stroma, within the superficial tumor epithelium, and in the perivascular areas of the myometrium. Results: Patients with >10 CD8(+) T lymphocytes/high-power field within the tumor epithelium at the invasive border displayed improved overall survival compared with patients with fewer intraepithelial CD8(+) T lymphocytes (87 and 50%, respectively; P = 0.027). Multivariate analysis revealed that stage, vascular invasion, grade, and the number of intraepithelial CD8(+) T lymphocytes at the invasive border were the only independent predictors of survival (P < 0.0001, P = 0.001, P = 0.011, and P = 0.025, respectively). Granzyme B+ cytoplasmatic granules were detected in a high proportion of CTLs, confirming their activated cytotoxic phenotype. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates for the first time that increased numbers of CTLs at the invasive border may be a reliable independent prognostic factor of survival in patients with endometrial carcinoma.

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