Correlations of Tumor-associated Macrophage Subtypes with Liver Metastases of Colorectal Cancer
Correlations of Tumor-associated Macrophage Subtypes with Liver Metastases of Colorectal Cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.2.1003
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Li, Qiang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cui, Yun-Long;Li, Hui-Kai;Li, Qiang
目的：探讨肿瘤相关巨噬细胞（TAM）及其M1、M2亚型与结直肠癌肝转移的相关性，为寻找肝转移的预测因子和研究机制提供参考。方法：将2000年至2009年120例结直肠癌患者分为低、中、高肝转移组（分别为A、B、C组）。采用S-P免疫组化染色和显微镜观察比较三组CD68阳性细胞（TAM）、CD80阳性细胞（M1）和CD163阳性细胞（M2）的表达情况。分析 TAM、M1、M2 和 M2/M1 比值与临床和病理参数的相关性。结果：随着肝转移能力的增强，TAM数量逐渐减少，三组间任意两组间差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05），而M1和M2数量分别显着减少和增加，三组间任意两组间差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05或P < 0.01）。此外，M2/M1比值随着肝转移能力的增强而增大（P < 0.01）。 TAM与各临床和病理参数的相关性没有统计学意义。 M1与淋巴转移、肝转移能力呈负相关。 M2与术前CEA水平、淋巴结转移、肿瘤分化程度、肝转移能力呈正相关。 M2/M1比率的情况也是如此。结论：TAMs对结直肠癌肝转移的影响并不取决于TAMs的总数，而是取决于功能亚型M1和M2的数量和比例。 M2数和M2/M1比值是结直肠癌肝转移更准确的预测因子。
Objective: This work aimed to investigate the correlations of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and their subtypes M1 and M2 with liver metastasis of colorectal cancer, and provide useful references for seeking predictors of liver metastasis and studying mechanisms. Methods: 120 patients with colorectal cancer from 2000 to 2009 were divided into low, middle and high liver metastasis groups (group A, B and C, respectively). S-P immunohistochemical staining and microscopic observation were conducted to compare expression in CD68-positive cells (TAMs), CD80-positive cells (M1) and CD163-positive cells (M2) in three groups. Correlations of TAMs, M1, M2, and M2/M1 ratio with clinical and pathological parameters were analyzed. Results: With increase of liver metastatic ability, the number of TAMs decreased gradually, with no significant difference between any two of the three groups (P > 0.05), while the numbers of M1 and M2 were significantly decreased and increased, respectively, with significant difference between any two of three groups (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). In addition, the M2/M1 ratio increased with increase of liver metastatic ability (P < 0.01). There was no statistical significance of correlation of TAMs with each clinical and pathological parameter. M1 was negatively related with lymphatic metastasis and liver metastatic ability. M2 was positively correlated with preoperative CEA level, lymphatic metastasis, tumor differentiation degree and liver metastatic ability. The same was the case for the M2/M1 ratio. Conclusions: Effects of TAMs on liver metastasis of colorectal cancer do not depend on the total number of TAMs, but on the number and proportion of functional subtypes M1 and M2. M2 number and M2/M1 ratio are more accurate predictors for liver metastasis of colorectal cancer.