4.5 Article

Elevation of circulating interleukin-8 is related to lymph node and distant metastases in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas - Implication for clinical evaluation of cancer patient

期刊

CYTOKINE
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 232-239

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cyto.2007.11.011

关键词

esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); interleukin-8 (IL-8); lymph node metastasis; vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A); vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF-C)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is an important factor in clinical evaluation of esophageal cancer patients. Biological markers able to support detection of metastatic lymph nodes are sought after. Interleukin-8 (IL-8) is overexpressed by many cancers and involved in cancer dissemination. We investigated the relationship between circulating IL-8 and clinicopathological features of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and evaluated the diagnostic potential of IL-8, with reference to the key angiogenic and lymph-angiogenic factors: vascular endothelial growth factors A and C (VEGF-A and VEGF-C). We found elevated IL-8 levels in ESCC patients, correlated with tumor size and cancer dissemination, especially LNM. Circulating IL-8 correlated with lymph-angiogenic VEGF-C rather then angiogenic VEGF-A. The association weakened in metastatic cancers, suggesting divergent mechanism of IL-8 involvement in the dissemination process. The cytokine levels correlated with platelets and neutrophils, pointing at these cells as possible sources of circulating IL-8. We demonstrated IL-8 that positively correlated with inflammation status of ESCC patients. Circulating IL-8 was a better indicator of ESCC dissemination than VEGF-A or VEGF-C. Yet, the detection rates were not satisfactory enough to allow for the recommendation of IL-8 determination as an adjunct to the clinical evaluation of lymph node involvement in ESCC patients. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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