4.6 Article

Tumor-associated macrophages express lymphatic endothelial growth factors and are related to peritumoral lymphangiogenesis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 161, 期 3, 页码 947-956

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64255-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation of lymphatic metastasis is the initial step of generalized spreading of tumor cells and predicts poor clinical prognosis. Lymphatic vessels generally arise within the peritumoral stroma, although the lymphangiopoietic vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF)-C and -D are produced by tumor cells. In a carefully selected collection of human cervical cancers (stage pT1b1) we demonstrate by quantitative immunohistochemistry and to situ hybridization that density of lymphatic microvessels is significantly increased in peritumoral stroma, and that a subset of stromal cells express large amounts of VEGF-C and VEGF-D. The density of cells producing these vascular growth factors correlates with peritumoral inflammatory stroma reaction, lymphatic microvessel density, and indirectly with peritumoral carcinomatous lymphangiosis and frequency of lymph node metastasis. The VEGF-C- and VEGF-D-producing stroma cells were identified in situ as a subset of activated tumor-associated macrophages (TAMS) by expression of a panel of macrophage-specific markers, including CDG8, CD23, and CD14. These TAMS also expressed the VEGF-C- and VEGF-D-specific tyrosine kinase receptor VEGFR-3. As TAMS are derived from monocytes in the circulation, a search in peripheral blood for candidate precursors of VEGFR-3-expressing TAMS revealed a subfraction of CD14-positive, VEGFR-3-expressing monocytes, that, however, failed to express VEGF-C and VEGF-D. Only after in vitro incubation with tumor necrosis factor-alpha, lipopolysaccharide, or VEGF-D did these monocytes start to synthesize VEGF-C de novo. In conclusion VEGF-C-expressing TAMS play a novel role in peritumoral lymphangiogenesis and subsequent dissemination inhuman cancer.

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

4.6
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