| Literature DB >> 28423526 |
Jian Ming Hu1,2, Kai Liu1, Ji Hong Liu1, Xian Li Jiang1, Xue Li Wang1, Yun Zhao Chen1, Shu Gang Li3, Hong Zou1, Li Juan Pang1, Chun Xia Liu1, Xiao Bin Cui1, Lan Yang1, Jin Zhao1, Xi Hua Shen1, Jin Fang Jiang1, Wei Hua Liang1, Xiang Lin Yuan2, Feng Li1,4.
Abstract
M2 macrophages was domesticated by tumor microenvironment to produce some angiogenic molecules and protease, facilitating angiogenesis and matrix breakdown, promoting tumor invasive and metastasis. However, The function of M2 macrophages to progression of eophageal carcinoma, especially Kazakh esophageal carcinoma is still dimness. This study aims to investigate M2 macrophages correlated with matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9) and microvessel density, and the role in the progression of Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. CD163 and CD34 as the marker of M2 macrophages and endothelial cells, were used to identify the M2 macrophages density and microvessel density, respectively. Immunohistochemistry staining was evaluated the expression of MMP9. The number of infiltrated CD163-positive M2 macrophages in tumor islets and stroma was significantly higher than in cancer adjacent normal tissues. The increased of M2 macrophages and microvessel density were significantly correlated with more malignant phenotypes including lymph node metastasis and clinical stage progression. Meanwhile, the expression of MMP9 showed much higher level in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma than that in cancer adjacent normal tissues, and high expression of MMP9 in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was significantly associated with age, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, and tumor clinical stage. The quantity of M2 macrophages in tumor stroma was positively associated with microvessel density and the expression of MMP9, and as an independent poorly prognostic factor for overall survival time of Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. These findings suggest the increased number of M2 macrophages correlated with high expression of MMP9 and high microvessel density may contribute to the tumor aggressiveness and angiogenesis, promoting the progression of Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: CD163; Kazakh; MMP9; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; macrophage
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28423526 PMCID: PMC5400603 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15630
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1The distribution of CD163-positive M2 macrophae and microvessel in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and Cancer adjacent normal (CAN) tissues
(A–D) Immunohistochemical staining of CD163, which was used as a marker of M2 macrophages and to evaluate the density of M2 macrophages in ESCC and CAN tissues. (A) and (B) showed the distribution of M2 macrophages in ESCC tumor stromal and islet, CD163 revealed diffuse staining of membranes and cytoplasm of M2 macrophages, and showed the high density of M2 macrophages located in ESCC tissues (especially in tumor stroma). (C) and (D) showed the distribution of M2 macrophages in CAN stroma and epithelia. A small number of CD163-positive M2 macrophages appear in CAN tissues. (E and F) Immunohistochemical staining of CD34, which was used to mark endothelial cells and to evaluate the microvessel density (MVD) in ESCC and CAN tissues. (E) showed high MVD in Kazakh ESCC tissues. (F) showed low MVD in Kazakh ESCC tissues.
The distribution of CD163-positive macrophages in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and Cancer adjacent normal (CAN) tissues
| Groups | Cases ( | Isletscount range) | Stroma(count range) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 15 (0–45) | 11.559/0.000* | 58 (9–139) | 10.081/0.000* | |
| 100 | 2 (0–10) | 19 (3–54) |
*P < 0.05.
Tumor infiltrating CD163-positive macrophages in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) islets and stroma, and their correlation with clinicopathological parameters
| Variable | Cases( | CD163+ macrophage counts in tumor islets | CD163+ macrophage counts in tumor stroma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (< 15) | High (≥ 15) | Low (< 58) | High (≥ 58) | ||||
| ≤Median(58 y) | 53 | 34 (64.2%) | 19 (35.8%) | 1.000 | 31 (58.5%) | 22 (41.5%) | 0.164 |
| > Median | 47 | 31 (66.0%) | 16 (34.0%) | 20 (42.6%) | 27 (57.4%) | ||
| Male | 68 | 47 (69.1%) | 21 (30.9%) | 0.301 | 35 (51.5%) | 33 (48.5%) | 1.000 |
| Female | 32 | 18 (56.3%) | 14 (43.8%) | 16 (50.0%) | 16 (50.0%) | ||
| Upper | 2 | 2 (100.0%) | 0 (0.00 %) | 0.272 | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0.991 |
| Middle | 70 | 47 (67.1%) | 23 (32.9%) | 36 (51.4%) | 34 (48.6%) | ||
| Lower | 28 | 16 (57.1%) | 12 (42.9%) | 14 (50.0%) | 14 (50.0%) | ||
| Well | 29 | 21 (72.4%) | 8 (27.6%) | 0.545 | 15 (51.7%) | 14 (48.3%) | 0.838 |
| Moderate | 47 | 30 (63.8%) | 17 (36.2%) | 25 (53.2%) | 22 (46.8%) | ||
| poor | 24 | 14 (58.3%) | 10 (41.7%) | 11 (45.8%) | 13 (54.2%) | ||
| TI–T2 | 35 | 19 (54.3%) | 16 (45.7%) | 0.153 | 20 (57.1%) | 15 (42.9%) | 0.489 |
| T3–T4 | 65 | 46 (70.8%) | 19 (29.2%) | 31 (47.7%) | 34 (52.3%) | ||
| Nodal | |||||||
| pN– | 51 | 39 (76.5%) | 12 (23.5%) | 0.025* | 35 (68.6%) | 16 (31.4%) | 0.001* |
| pN+ | 49 | 26 (53.1%) | 23 (46.9%) | 16 (32.7%) | 33 (67.3%) | ||
| I–II | 62 | 42 (67.7%) | 20 (32.3%) | 0.604 | 40 (64.5%) | 22 (35.5%) | 0.001* |
| III–IV | 38 | 23 (60.5%) | 15 (39.5%) | 11 (28.9%) | 27 (71.1%) | ||
Abbreviations: pN−, no lymph node metastasis; pN+: node metastasis. *P < 0.05.
Correlation between microvessel density (MVD) and clinicopathological parameters in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) tumor stroma
| Variable | Cases( | MVD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (< 17) | High (≥ 17) | |||
| ≤ Median (58y) | 53 | 28 (52.8%) | 25 (47.2%) | 0.540 |
| > Median | 47 | 21 (44.7%) | 26 (55.3%) | |
| Male | 68 | 31 (45.6%) | 37 (54.4%) | 0.435 |
| Female | 32 | 18 (56.2%) | 14 (43.8%) | |
| Upper | 2 | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0 %) | 0.255 |
| Middle | 70 | 35 (50.0%) | 35 (50.0%) | |
| Lower | 28 | 14 (50.0%) | 14 (50.0%) | |
| Well | 29 | 15 (51.7%) | 14 (48.3%) | 0.197 |
| Moderate | 47 | 26 (55.3%) | 21 (44.7%) | |
| poor | 24 | 8 (33.3%) | 16 (66.7%) | |
| TI–T2 | 35 | 19 (54.3%) | 16 (45.7%) | 0.571 |
| T3–T4 | 65 | 30 (46.2%) | 35 (53.8%) | |
| Nodal | ||||
| pN− | 51 | 31 (60.8%) | 20 (39.4%) | 0.027* |
| pN+ | 49 | 18 (36.7%) | 31 (63.3%) | |
| I–II | 62 | 36 (58.1%) | 26 (41.9%) | 0.035* |
| III–IV | 38 | 13 (34.2%) | 25 (65.8%) | |
Abbreviations: pN−, no lymph node metastasis; pN+: node metastasis. *P < 0.05.
Figure 2Immunohistochemical staining of MMP9 in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and Cancer adjacent normal (CAN) tissues
MMP9 staining is primarily observed in tumor stroma (cell membranes and cytoplasm), some ESCC cells also show staining. (A) Negative MMP9 staining is shown in CAN tissues (scored as 0). (B) Weak MMP9 staining is shown in ESCC tissues (scored as 1). (C) and (D) show moderate and strong MMP9 staining in Kazakh ESCC tissues, respectively (scored as 2 and 3, respectively).
The expression of MMP9 in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and cancer adjacent normal (CAN) tissues
| Characteristics | N | Negative | Positive combination | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (%) | 1+(%) | X2 | P | 2+3+(%) | X2 | P | 1+2+3+ | X2 | P | ||
| ESCCs | 100 | 10 (10.0%) | 35 (35.0%) | 9.393 | 0.002* | 55 (55.0%) | 40.369 | 0.000* | 90 (90.0%) | 27.625 | 0.000* |
| CANs | 100 | 44 (44.0%) | 41 (41.0%) | 16 (16.0%) | 56 (56.0%) | ||||||
*P < 0.05.
Correlation between expression of MMP9 and clinicopathological parameters in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) tissues
| Variable | Cases ( | MMP9 low expression | MMP9 high expression | X2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0/1+(%) | 2+/3+(%) | ||||
| ≤ Median (58y) | 53 | 30 (56.6%) | 23 (43.4%) | 5.178 | |
| > Median | 47 | 15 (31.9%) | 32 (68.1%) | ||
| Male | 68 | 30 (44.1%) | 38 (55.9%) | 0.002 | 0.966 |
| Femle | 32 | 15 (46.9%) | 17 (53.1%) | ||
| Upper | 2 | 2 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2.597 | 0.273 |
| Middle | 70 | 30 (42.9%) | 40 (57.1%) | ||
| Lower | 28 | 13 (46.4%) | 15 (53.6%) | ||
| Well | 29 | 10 (34.5 %) | 19 (65.5%) | 2.699 | 0.259 |
| Moderate | 47 | 25 (53.2%) | 22 (46.8%) | ||
| poor | 24 | 10 (41.7%) | 14 (58.3%) | ||
| TI–T2 | 35 | 21 (60.0%) | 14 (40.0%) | 4.007 | |
| T3–T4 | 65 | 24 (36.9%) | 41 (63.1%) | ||
| Nodal | |||||
| pN− | 51 | 32 (62.7%) | 19 (37.7%) | 11.819 | |
| pN+ | 49 | 13 (26.5%) | 36 (73.5%) | ||
| I–II | 62 | 37 (59.7%) | 25 (40.3%) | 12.684 | |
| III–IV | 38 | 8 (21.8%) | 30 (78.9%) |
Abbreviations: pN−, no lymph node metastasis; pN+: node metastasis. *P < 0.05.
Figure 3Cross correlation analyses reveal strong relationships among the density of M2 macrophage in tumor islet, tumor stroma and expression of MMP9, microvessel density (MVD) in Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)
(A) Significant correlation was observed between the density of M2 macrophages in Kazakh ESCCs tumor islet and stroma (r = 0.422; P < 0.001). (B) and (C) Significant correlation was observed between M2 macrophages in Kazakh ESCCs tumor islet, stroma and the expression of MMP9 (r = 0.374, r = 0.455; P < 0.001). (D and E) Significant correlation between the density of M2 macrophages in Kazakh ESCCs tumor stroma and MVD( r = 0.231; P < 0.05), but not between the density of M2 macrophages in Kazakh ESCCs tumor islets and MVD( r = 0.101; P > 0.05), (F) significant correlation between the density of the expression of MMP9 and MVD in Kazakh ESCCs .
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier overall survival curves of Kazakh esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients stratified by the density of CD163 positive M2 macrophages (MØ) in tumor islet and stroma based on the median number
(A) No significant difference for overall survival between Kazakh patients with high and low density of CD163 positive M2 macrophages (MØ) in tumor islets (P > 0.05). (B) Patients with high density of CD163 positive M2 macrophages (MØ) in tumor stroma had a poor overall survival (P < 0.001).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of clinicopathological characteristics and M2 macrophages (MØ) with overall survival for Kazakh esophageal carcinoma (ESCC)
| Variable | Cases ( | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | ||||||
| Age (> 58 y/ ≤ 58 y) | 100 | 0.439 | 0.979 | 1.044 | 0.508 | ||||
| Sex (female/male) | 100 | 0.067 | 0.528 | 1.633 | 0.796 | ||||
| Histologic grade(moderate+poor/well) | 100 | 1.050 | 0.561 | 1.199 | 0.305 | ||||
| Depth of invasion (T3 + T4/T1 + T2) | 100 | 1.528 | 0.820 | 2.408 | 0.216 | ||||
| Nodal metastasis (positive/negative) | 100 | 15.629 | 1.757 | 5.319 | 0.085 | 0.469 | 2.777 | 0.770 | |
| TNM stage (III + IV/I + II) | 100 | 22.352 | 2.156 | 6.399 | 4.347 | 1.054 | 5.508 | ||
| The density of M2 MØ in nest (high/low) | 100 | 4.540 | 0.976 | 2.655 | 0.057 | 0.064 | 0.519 | 1.658 | 0.801 |
| The density of M2 MØ in tumor stroma (high/low) | 100 | 18.521 | 1.969 | 6.114 | 5.464 | 1.141 | 4.506 | ||
*P < 0.05.