4.7 Article

Strong HLA-DR expression in microsatellite stable carcinomas of the large bowel is associated with good prognosis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 756-762

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600507

关键词

colorectal neoplasms; HLA-DR; immunohistochemistry; microsatellite instability; survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progression of colorectal cancer may follow either of two main genetic routes: the chromosome- or microsatellite-instability pathways. Association between the patients' prognosis and microsatellite instability has been questioned. Improved survival has previously been found in patients with expression of HLA-DR antigens on their tumour cells. In this study, the expression of HLA-DR antigen was investigated by immunohistochemistry in 357 large bowel carcinomas stratified by microsatellite instability status. Sixteen per cent of the tumours showed strong HLA-DR expression and 35% had weak DR expression. We confirmed that patients with strong positive HLA-DR staining had improved survival (P < 0.001) compared to patients with no HLA-DR expression. Strong epithelial HLA-DR staining was significantly associated with high level of microsatellite instability (P < 0.001). In the subgroup of tumours with characteristics typical of the chromosomal instability phenotype, i.e. in microsatellite-stable tumours, the patients positive for the HLA-DR determinants showed better survival than those without HLA-DR expression. The protective effect of HLA-DR expression on survival was confirmed by multivariate analysis, both in the whole patient group and in the microsatellite-stable/microsatellite instability-low group. This might be explained by enhanced T-cell mediated anti-tumour immune responses against tumour cells in the HLA-DR positive tumours. The finding of better patient survival in the subgroup of strong HLA-DR positive microsatellite-stable tumours may have clinical implications for these patients. (C) 2002 Cancer Research UK.

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