Literature DB >> 30022852

The prognostic significance of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts and tumor-associated macrophages in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Yahui Yu1,2,3, Liangru Ke1,4, Xing Lv1,2, Yi Hong Ling1,5, Jiabin Lu1,5, Hu Liang1,2, Wenze Qiu1,2, Xinjun Huang1,2, Guoying Liu1,2, Wangzhong Li1,2, Xiang Guo1,2, Weixiong Xia1,2, Yanqun Xiang1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tumor stroma cells play an important role in the carcinogenesis and progression of cancer. The aim of the present investigation was to explore the predictive role of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The densities of CAFs and TAMs were measured by immunohistochemistry staining for α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), CD68, and CD163 in two sets of tissue microarrays including 260 pretreatment NPC tissues, that is, a training test comprising of 152 patients and a validation set comprising of 108 patients. Chi-square tests were performed for comparisons among the groups. Survival rates were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify significant independent variables.
RESULTS: Patients older than 50 years showed a lower expression of CD68, and there was a positive relationship between the densities of CAFs and CD163+ TAMs (p=0.001). In the multivariate analysis of the training test, both α-SMA and CD163 were independent prognostic factors for overall survival and progression-free survival (all p<0.05). Based on the expression levels of α-SMA and CD163, patients were categorized into three groups: high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups according to both high, either high, and both low, respectively. Survival analysis and Cox multivariate analysis showed that the risk groups based on α-SMA and CD163 expression were independent predictors for the survival of patients with NPC in the training test, which was also confirmed by the validation test.
CONCLUSION: A patient's risk group based on the level of CD163+ TAMs and CAFs was an independent predictor of survival, which may facilitate patient counseling and individualized treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CD163; CD68; multivariate analysis; risk groups; α-SMA

Year:  2018        PMID: 30022852      PMCID: PMC6042505          DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S167071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Manag Res        ISSN: 1179-1322            Impact factor:   3.989


Introduction

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is an endemic malignancy in Southern China and Southeast Asia that is highly invasive and has a high metastasis rate.1–4 With the development of diagnostic imaging, radiotherapeutic techniques, and chemotherapy regimens, the ability to control NPC has improved significantly.5 However, 20%–30% of newly diagnosed, non-metastatic patients still develop local recurrence or distant metastasis after radical chemoradiotherapy.6,7 Although the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) cancer staging system summarized by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the International Union for Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) provides a useful benchmark for establishing a treatment strategy and estimating the prognosis, there remain large variations in the clinical outcomes of patients with the same stage who are undergoing similar treatment strategies.8 Therefore, the staging system is based only on the anatomical extent, which is not enough to evaluate the whole tumor status or guide therapy. Recently, a growing amount of evidence has indicated that tumor stroma cells play an important role in the carcinogenesis and progression of cancer.9–11 Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are primary components of tumor stroma cell populations, which are characterized by “de novo” expression of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and are known to promote the growth and invasion of cancer cells by various mechanisms, such as growth factor and chemokine production, extracellular matrix remodeling, and so on, as well as aid in the suppression of the host immune response.12–15 Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are also major stromal components within tumors that exist as a heterogeneous population of cells derived from monocytes and are polarized into two functionally distinct forms, M1 and M2, in response to tissue microenvironments and/or inflammatory status.16 CD68 has been widely used as a pan-macrophage marker in previous studies,17 and the correlations between CD68+ TAMs and the prognosis of patients were inconsistent among various cancers including thyroid cancer, lung cancer, hepatocellular cancer, esophageal cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and so on.18–22 CD163 is one of the markers used to identify M2 macrophages in several tumors and has predicted adverse outcomes.23–29 Some reports have indicated that CAFs and TAMs are synergistically associated with the prognostic significance in several types of tumors.30–32 However, the clinical significance of TAMs and CAFs and the relationship between TAMs and CAFs in NPC has not been determined. In this study, initially, we used triplets of tissue microarrays (TMAs), including 152 NPC specimens from patients with long follow-ups to clarify the clinical significance of TAMs and CAFs by analyzing the expression of α-SMA (fibroblasts), CD68, and CD163 and their relationship between one another. Then, we constructed a model based on these markers to predict NPC patients’ prognosis, which was further validated with another TMA comprising 108 NPC specimens.

Patients and methods

Patients and samples

We performed a retrospective review of clinical records of patients with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic NPC in Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), and those with high-quality, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NPC tissues from the original diagnostic biopsy were enrolled in the study. Two sets of TMAs including 260 specimens were analyzed in our study. TMA comprising specimens from 152 patients treated with two-dimensional radical radiotherapy (2DRT) between November 1999 and December 2000 was used as the training set, and another TMA comprising specimens from 108 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) between December 2010 and October 2013 was used for validation. All patients were restaged according to the 7th edition UICC/AJCC cancer staging system. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board and ethics committee of SYSUCC. Informed written consents for using tissue and clinical data for scientific research were obtained from all participants in our study. TMA was constructed as described previously.33

Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

Briefly, 4-µm thick tissue sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NPC tissues were deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated through graded alcohol. Then, antigenic retrieval was performed with sodium citrate and a high-pressure boiler for 20 minutes. After cooling down to the room temperature, the sections were incubated with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 minutes to inhibit endogenous peroxidases. Then, the sections were incubated with anti-CD68 (diluted 1:80; Boster, Wuhan, China), anti-CD163 (diluted 1:100; Zhongshan Golden Bridge, Beijing, China), and anti-α-SMA (diluted 1:200; Zhongshan Golden Bridge) antibodies overnight at 4°C. The primary antibodies were detected by an EnVision kit (DAKO, Carpinteria, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instruction.

IHC assessment

Each section was screened at low-power magnification to identify the areas with the highest staining density. The positive expression of CD68 or CD163 was defined by a granular cytoplasm or a cytoplasmic and membrane staining pattern. In addition, the positive expression of α-SMA was defined by the staining of large spindle-shaped fibroblasts around the tumor cells, and vascular-positive staining as an internal control was not classified. The expression of α-SMA, CD68, and CD163 was classified into four grades: negative (0), no staining; scant (1), a small amount of scattered staining; focal (2), concentrated stains with an irregular and non-continuous focus; and abundant (3), concentrated stains with an extensive and continuous focus; this classification system was similar to the system used in a previous study.31 Each section was scored independently by two pathologists. The average values from the two pathologists were used for further analysis.

Statistical analysis

Chi-square tests were performed for comparisons between groups. Spearman’s correlation was used to analyze the correlation between the TAM and CAF markers. Survival rates were estimated by using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated by a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. The survival duration was calculated from the first day of NPC diagnosis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), which was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS). All statistical tests were two sided, and p-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics and treatment in the training set

The training set included 121 males and 31 females with a median age of 48 years (range, 18–71 years). There were 4 (2.6%) patients with stage I disease, 56 (36.8%) patients with stage II disease, 54 (35.5%) patients with stage III disease, and 38 (25%) patients with stage IVA–B disease. All patients underwent 2DRT with a daily fraction of 2.0 Gy and 5 fractions per week; the radiotherapy dose ranges to the nasopharynx and neck were 60–80 Gy and 50–70 Gy, respectively. Among the 152 patients with a median followup time of 130 months (range, 5–144 months), 70 (46.1%) patients died as a result of NPC, and 5 (3.3%) patients died of a non-cancer-related disease. Thirty-two (21.1%) patients suffered from locoregional recurrence, and 33 (21.7%) patients suffered from distant metastasis. The 10-year OS, PFS, LRFFS, and DMFS rates were 48%, 55%, 76%, and 76%, respectively.

CD68, CD163, and α-SMA in NPC specimens

According to the expression levels of CD68, CD163, and α-SMA, patients were allocated into the “high” group for scores of 2–3 and the “low” group for scores of 0–1 (Figure 1). The distributions of the characteristics of the training sets within the scoring groups are summarized in Table 1. There were no significant relationships among the expression levels of CD68, CD163, and α-SMA and the T stages, N stages, or clinical stages. Notably, there was a lower expression of CD68 in patients older than 50 years than in the younger patients, and patients in the group of low CD163 expression tended to not undergo chemotherapy. Spearman’s correlation revealed a direct correlation between CD163+ TAMs and CAFs (Table 2).
Figure 1

Representative samples of low and high expression of CD68 (A), CD163 (B), and α-SMA (C) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) tissues detected by immunohistochemical staining. Blood vessels were used as internal positive controls for α-SMA. Positively stained cells were identified as brown. Scale bar, 50 µm.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of the 152 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in the training set

Clinical parametersNo. of patientsCD68
CD163
α-SMA
Low (n=71)High (n=81)p-valueLow (n=76)High (n=76)p-valueLow (n=78)High (n=74)p-value
Gender0.8340.5460.399
 Female31151617141813
 Male121566559626061
Age (years)0.0020.7450.342
 ≤5082295340424537
 >5070422836343337
T stage0.8700.6200.446
 T1–T291434844474942
 T3–T461283332292932
N stage0.2190.2760.599
 N0–N1110486258525555
 N2–N342231918242319
Clinical stage0.8880.8690.379
 I–II63293432313528
 III–IV89424744454346
Chemotherapy0.7810.0010.509
 No105505562435253
 Yes47212614332621
Vital status0.0230.0350.145
 Alive77294845324433
 Dead75423331443441
Table 2

Correlations among the expression levels of TAM and CAF markers in NPC patients

IHC markersCD68CD163α-SMA
CD68r=−0.092r=−0.038
p=0.258p=0.644
CD163r=−0.263
p=0.001

Abbreviations: CAF, carcinoma associated fibroblasts; TAM, tumor-associated macrophages; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; IHC, immunohistochemistry; α-SMA, α-smooth muscle actin.

Survival analysis and prognostic factors in NPC patients

We examined the relationships among the density of TAMs and CAFs and patient survival rates in the training set. The 10-year OS, PFS, and LRFFS rates in the CD68high group (n=81) were 58%, 64%, and 83%, which were significantly higher than those of 37%, 45%, and 67% in the CD68low group (n=71; p=0.023, p=0.009, and p=0.031), respectively. However, no significant difference in DMFS was observed between the two groups (p=0.142; Figure 2). In contrast, the 10-year OS, PFS, LRFFS, and DMFS rates in the CD163high group (n=76) were 40%, 43%, 65%, and 69%, which were significantly lower than those of 57%, 68%, 86%, and 84% in the CD163low group (n=76; p=0.046, p=0.001, p=0.015, and p=0.035), respectively (Figure 3). Moreover, the 10-year OS, PFS, and LRFFS showed no significant differences between the α-SMAhigh group and the α-SMAlow group. Only the 10-year DMFS rate in the α-SMAlow group was significantly higher than that in the α-SMAlow group (83% vs 69%, p=0.036; Figure 4).
Figure 2

Kaplan–Meier analysis of the 10-year overall survival (A), 10-year progression-free survival (B), 10-year locoregional failure-free survival (C), and the 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (D) in relation to the expression of CD68 in the training test.

Figure 3

Kaplan–Meier analysis of the 10-year overall survival (A), 10-year progression-free survival (B), 10-year locoregional failure-free survival (C), and the 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (D) in relation to the expression of CD163 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissues.

Figure 4

Kaplan–Meier analysis of the 10-year overall survival (A), 10-year progression-free survival (B), 10-year locoregional failure-free survival (C), and the 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (D) in relation to the expression of α-SMA in the training test.

Then, a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to discriminate the independent prognostic indicators for the OS and PFS. The expressions of CD163 and α-SMA were independent prognostic factors for the OS and PFS (all p<0.05), the tumor N stage was significantly associated with PFS (p=0.013), and age was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p=0.049; Table 3).
Table 3

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model of the training set

CovariateOverall survival
Progression-free survival
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Gender
 FemaleReferenceReference
 Male1.234 (0.668–2.282)0.5021.802 (0.876–3.709)0.110
Age (years)
 ≤50ReferenceReference
 >501.628 (1.002–2.644)0.0491.294 (0.760–2.203)0.343
T stage
 T1–T2ReferenceReference
 T3–T41.760 (0.787–3.935)0.1691.572 (0.674–3.666)0.295
N stage
 N0–N1ReferenceReference
 N2–N31.932 (0.916–4.074)0.0842.809 (1.247–6.328)0.013
Clinical stage
 I–IIReferenceReference
 III–IV0.738 (0.301–1.810)0.5060.709 (0.272–1.851)0.483
Chemotherapy
 NoReferenceReference
 Yes0.456 (0.456–1.423)0.8050.629 (0.336–1.175)0.146
CD68
 LowReferenceReference
 High0.407 (0.497–1.328)0.8120.777 (0.450–1.340)0.364
CD163
 LowReferenceReference
 High1.848 (1.114–3.064)0.0172.956 (1.664–5.252)0.001
α-SMA
 LowReferenceReference
 High1.823 (1.126–2.951)0.0152.074 (1.238–3.472)0.006

Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.

Failure risk groups based on CAF and TAM levels

Considering the prognostic significance of the expression of both CD163 and α-SMA, we categorized the patients into three failure risk groups based on their expression levels and compared the survival rates among the expression groups. 1) The high-risk group (high expression of both CD163 and α-SMA) included 27 (17.8%) patients; 2) the intermediate-risk group (high expression of either CD163 or α-SMA) included 96 (63.2%) patients; and 3) the low-risk group (high expression of neither CD163 nor α-SMA) included 29 (19.1%) patients. The distributions of clinical characteristics in training set according to risk groups are summarized in Table 4. The 10-year OS rates for the high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups were 33%, 52%, and 69%, respectively (p=0.007). The 10-year PFS rates for the three groups were 29%, 53%, and 85%, respectively (p<0.001). The 10-year LRFFS rates for the three groups were 65%, 72%, and 96%, respectively (p=0.031). In addition, the 10-year DMFS rates were 48%, 80%, and 89%, respectively (p<0.001; Figure 5). The multivariate analysis showed that the N stage and risk groups were independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS, and age was an independent prognostic factor of OS, which was also similar to previous multivariate analysis before grouping (Table 5).
Table 4

Distribution of clinical characteristics of the whole cohort according to risk groups

Clinical parametersTraining set (risk groups)
Validation set (risk groups)
CaseLowIntermediateHighp-valueCaseLowIntermediateHighp-value
Gender0.4810.272
 Female318194261079
 Male12121772382273619
Age (years)0.5700.268
 ≤508218491570272815
 >507011471238101513
T stage0.8480.670
 T1–T29117591512462
 T3–T46112371296333726
N stage0.8860.102
 N0–N111022691949171517
 N2–N342727859202811
Clinical stage0.6280.692
 I–II63134196321
 III–IV89165518102344127
Chemotherapy0.0650.472
 No1052564163812188
 Yes474321170252520
Vital status0.0120.046
 Alive772147997363922
 Dead758491811146
Figure 5

Kaplan–Meier analysis of the 10-year overall survival (A), 10-year progression-free survival (B), 10-year locoregional failure-free survival (C), and the 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (D) in relation to the risk groups of low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the training test.

Table 5

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model of the cohort according to the risk groups

CovariateTraining set
Validation set
Overall survival
Progression-free survival
Overall survival
Progression-free survival
HR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-valueHR (95% CI)p-value
Gender
 FemaleReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
 Male1.22 (0.66–2.26)0.5171.78 (0.89–3.65)0.1171.41 (0.35–5.68)0.6273.42 (0.74–15.83)0.117
Age (years)
 ≤50ReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
 >501.68 (1.04–2.70)0.0331.33 (0.79–2.24)0.2905.99 (1.50–23.87)0.0111.93 (0.67–5.62)0.23
T stage
 T1–T2ReferenceReference
 T3–T41.90 (0.86–4.19)0.1131.72 (0.75–3.95)0.202
N stage
 N0–N1ReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
 N2–N32.08 (1.01–4.28)0.0473.07 (1.41–6.68)0.0053.17 (0.82–12.29)0.0962.05 (0.68–6.21)0.206
Clinical stage
 I–IIReferenceReference
 III–IV0.70 (0.29–1.70)0.4300.67 (0.26–1.71)0.404
Chemotherapy
 NoReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
 Yes0.78 (0.45–1.36)0.3850.64 (0.34–1.19)0.1501.81 (0.44–7.42)0.4112.93 (0.78–10.99)0.111
Risk group
 LowReferenceReferenceReferenceReference
 Intermediate2.25 (1.05–4.82)0.0374.08 (1.44–11.55)0.0082.90 (0.31–26.98)0.3514.86 (0.56–42.59)0.153
 High3.85 (1.64–9.04)0.0028.70 (2.89–26.15)<0.0019.63 (1.07–87.06)0.04421.23 (2.62–171.94)0.004

Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.

Validation of the CAF- and TAM-based grouping

To confirm the prognostic significance of the failure risk grouping in patients treated with IMRT, the validation set of 108 NPC specimens were collected. All patients completed radical IMRT with a daily fraction of 2.0–2.33 Gy and 5 fractions per week; the radiotherapy dose ranges to the nasopharynx and neck were 70 and 60–66 Gy, respectively. Among the 108 patients with a median follow-up time of 59 months (range, 4–88 months), 11 (10.2%) patients died as a result of NPC, 8 (7.4%) patients suffered from locoregional recurrence, and 11 (10.2%) patients suffered from distant metastasis. The high-risk group, the intermediate-risk group, and the low-risk group included 37, 42, and 29 patients, respectively. The distributions of clinical characteristics in validation set according to risk groups are summarized in Table 4. The 5-year OS rates for the three groups were 76%, 89%, and 97%, respectively (p=0.023). The 5-year PFS rates for the three groups were 62%, 88%, and 97%, respectively (p<0.001). The 5-year LRFFS rates for the three groups were 84%, 89%, and 100%, respectively (p=0.044). In addition, the 5-year DMFS rates were 70%, 95%, and 97%, respectively (p<0.001; Figure 6). The multivariate analysis showed that risk groups were an independent prognostic factor of OS and PFS, and age was an independent prognostic factor of OS, which was similar to the results in training set (Table 5).
Figure 6

Kaplan–Meier analysis of the 5-year overall survival (A), 5-year progression-free survival (B), 5-year locoregional failure-free survival (C), and the 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (D) in relation to the risk groups of low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the validation test.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine CAF and TAM markers to evaluate the prognosis of NPC patients. This study confirmed the prognostic value of TAMs and CAFs and the obvious correlation between the density of CAFs and M2 TAMs in NPC patients. Previous studies have reported bidirectional correlations between patient survival and macrophage levels in many malignancies. For CD68, a high density of CD68+ macrophages was correlated with a decreased PFS and an increased likelihood of relapse in classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma34 as well as with a decreased survival in patients with breast cancer35 and advanced thyroid cancer.20 However, in other malignancies, such as non-small-cell lung cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and colon cancer, CD68+ macrophage density confers a marked survival advantage.36–38 In our study, higher expression of CD68+ macrophages in NPC specimens predicted better OS and PFS rates and decreased locoregional failure in the univariate Cox regression analysis. As referred above, the CD68 antibody recognizes both M1 and M2 macrophages.17 M1 macrophages, which are characterized by the high expressions of proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and IL-12, are potent effector cells that kill microorganisms and tumor cells.39 In contrast, M2 macrophages, which are characterized by the high expression of IL-4 and IL-10, are prominently involved in cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, angiogenesis, chemoresistance, matrix breakdown, and tumor cell motility.40,41 The prognosis related to the higher expression of CD68 may be due to larger proportion or a more active response of M1 cells in the NPC tissues. Despite the non-significant p-value of the CD68 density after adjustment in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the protective trend for survival still exists. In addition, a study of 60 patients with NPC showed that the CD68+ TAM density correlated with a better prognosis.42 CD163 is a highly specific marker of M2 macrophages and has been studied in several aggressive tumors, and the increased expression of CD163 was significantly associated with a poor prognosis in various cancers.23–25,29 In our study, higher expression of CD163 predicted worse survival in NPC patients. This result is consistent with previous studies. However, there is controversy about the role of TAMs in tumor progression and metastasis. The individual macrophage markers (ie, CD68, CD163, or CD206) did not correlate with survival in a study on NPC.43 The discrepancy may be due to the sample size and keratinizing/non-keratinizing proportions of NPC patients as a regional difference, where 77 (86%) of the 91 NPC patients had keratinization carcinoma in the Netherlands. More than 95% of the patients in endemic areas such as southern China were diagnosed with non-keratinizing carcinoma, including those in our study population comprising 260 patients.44 Recently, CAF cross talk with cancer cells has been suggested to stimulate tumor progression by creating a favorable microenvironment for progression, invasion, and metastasis.12,14 In addition, α-SMA immunostaining of CAFs in oral tongue squamous cancer,45 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,46 colorectal cancer,47 and breast cancer48 was related to a poorer prognosis. In our study on NPC, a high level of α-SMA expression in CAFs also predicted an adverse prognosis and influenced the OS and PFS mainly through affecting the DMFS independently from the clinical stage. However, in another study on the prognosis of CAFs in 85 NPC patients, besides a poorer prognosis, α-SMA expression in fibroblasts was closely correlated with T stage (p<0.05).49 This discrepancy may be caused by three reasons. On the one hand, the staging system of the previous study was based on the 2000 World Health Organization criteria; however, all cases in our study were restaged according to the 7th edition of the UICC/AJCC cancer staging system. The differences between the two staging systems may account for this discrepancy. On the other hand, the population in the training test with 152 patients is much larger than that in the previous study, which may possess a better statistical value. Many studies in other cancers have described the obvious correlations between the density of CAFs and M2 TAMs. A study on prostate carcinoma reported that the relationship between M2 TAMs and CAFs is reciprocal, as the M2 TAMs affect the resident tissue fibroblast-to-CAF transdifferentiation, leading to their enhanced reactivity. CAFs facilitate monocyte recruitment, macrophage differentiation, and M2 polarization, and then CAFs and M2 TAMs cooperate in promoting tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and metastasis.50 The collaboration of CAFs and M2 TAMs in facilitating tumor cell growth and invasion was also verified in bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, breast carcinoma, and neuroblastoma.30,32,51,52 In addition, in the present study on NPC, besides verifying the correlation between the densities of M2 TAMs and CAFs, we determined that the high expression of both CD163 and α-SMA in the primary tumor site results in significantly worse survival in two sets of TMA containing 260 NPC patients, which is highly consistent with previous studies. The combination of TAM and CAF expression has been developed to predict the outcomes of various cancer patients. In a study on OSCC from Japan, intermediate CAF expression and high CD163+ macrophage levels were significantly correlated with a poor outcome in patients with OSCC.31 According to another study from Spain, the combination of CAF and M2 markers identified three groups of patients with clear differences in disease progression and was regarded as a decisive factor in the survival of advanced-stage patients.30 Similarly, based on the density of CD163+ TAMs and CAFs in the tumor stroma, both the cell types are closely related to prognosis, and failure risk groups have been categorized to predict the survival of NPC patients; this stratification is an independent prognostic factor, which may be a good supplement to the TNM classification of NPC patients to identify those with a worse prognosis and consider a more intensive treatment, such as adjuvant chemotherapy and targeted therapy, for those in the high-risk group.

Limitations

There are some limitations in this study. This is a retrospective design. The patient population’s clinical characteristics were diverse; therefore, an observational prospective study is necessary to validate this prognostic model. In addition, the molecular mechanism of the cross talk between CAFs/TAMs and tumor cells in NPC also needs further investigation.

Conclusion

We identified the densities of CD163+ TAMs and CAFs as independent predictors of survival, and risk groups based on the densities of CD163+ TAM and CAF were independent predictors of survival, which may facilitate patient counseling and individualized treatment. A prospective study to validate this prognostic model is needed.

Availability of data and materials

The authenticity of this article has been validated by uploading the key raw data onto the Research Data Deposit public platform (http://www.researchdata.org.cn) with the approval number RDDA2018000475.
  52 in total

1.  Is nasopharyngeal cancer really a "Cantonese cancer"?

Authors:  Joseph Tien Seng Wee; Tam Cam Ha; Susan Li Er Loong; Chao-Nan Qian
Journal:  Chin J Cancer       Date:  2010-05

Review 2.  Macrophage polarization comes of age.

Authors:  Alberto Mantovani; Antonio Sica; Massimo Locati
Journal:  Immunity       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 31.745

3.  Tumor-associated macrophages: the double-edged sword in cancer progression.

Authors:  Jeremy J W Chen; Yi-Chen Lin; Pei-Li Yao; Ang Yuan; Hsang-Yu Chen; Chia-Tung Shun; Meng-Feng Tsai; Chun-Houh Chen; Pan-Chyr Yang
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Macrophage and mast-cell invasion of tumor cell islets confers a marked survival advantage in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Tomas J Welsh; Ruth H Green; Donna Richardson; David A Waller; Kenneth J O'Byrne; Peter Bradding
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Cancer-associated fibroblast and M2 macrophage markers together predict outcome in colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Mercedes Herrera; Alberto Herrera; Gemma Domínguez; Javier Silva; Vanesa García; José M García; Irene Gómez; Beatriz Soldevilla; Concepción Muñoz; Mariano Provencio; Yolanda Campos-Martin; Antonio García de Herreros; Ignacio Casal; Félix Bonilla; Cristina Peña
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 6.716

6.  Cancer-associated fibroblasts and CD163-positive macrophages in oral squamous cell carcinoma: their clinicopathological and prognostic significance.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Fujii; Kohei Shomori; Tatsushi Shiomi; Motoki Nakabayashi; Chikako Takeda; Kazuo Ryoke; Hisao Ito
Journal:  J Oral Pathol Med       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 4.253

7.  Expression of CD163, interleukin-10, and interferon-gamma in oral squamous cell carcinoma: mutual relationships and prognostic implications.

Authors:  Shan Wang; Miao Sun; Chuanwen Gu; Xiaolong Wang; Dong Chen; Eryang Zhao; Xiaohui Jiao; Jinhua Zheng
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  2014-05-03       Impact factor: 2.612

8.  Preliminary results of a randomized study on therapeutic gain by concurrent chemotherapy for regionally-advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group.

Authors:  Anne W M Lee; W H Lau; Stewart Y Tung; Daniel T T Chua; Rick Chappell; L Xu; Lillian Siu; W M Sze; T W Leung; Jonathan S T Sham; Roger K C Ngan; Stephen C K Law; T K Yau; Joseph S K Au; Brian O'Sullivan; Ellie S Y Pang; S K O; Gordon K H Au; Joseph T Lau
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  High macrophage infiltration along the tumor front correlates with improved survival in colon cancer.

Authors:  Johan Forssell; Ake Oberg; Maria L Henriksson; Roger Stenling; Andreas Jung; Richard Palmqvist
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  High expression of macrophage colony-stimulating factor in peritumoral liver tissue is associated with poor survival after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Zhu; Ju-Bo Zhang; Peng-Yuan Zhuang; Hong-Guang Zhu; Wei Zhang; Yu-Quan Xiong; Wei-Zhong Wu; Lu Wang; Zhao-You Tang; Hui-Chuan Sun
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  19 in total

1.  Cigarette Smoke Induces Metabolic Reprogramming of the Tumor Stroma in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Marina Domingo-Vidal; Diana Whitaker-Menezes; Cristina Martos-Rus; Patrick Tassone; Christopher M Snyder; Madalina Tuluc; Nancy Philp; Joseph Curry; Ubaldo Martinez-Outschoorn
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 5.852

2.  Necrosis Factor-α (TNF-α) and the Presence of Macrophage M2 and T Regulatory Cells in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Iffah Mardhiyah; Yustina Nuke Ardiyan; Siti Hamidatul Aliyah; Enda Cindylosa Sitepu; Camelia Herdini; Ery Kus Dwianingsih; Fatin Asfarina; Sumartiningsih Sumartiningsih; Jajah Fachiroh; Dewi Kartikawati Paramita
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2021-08-01

3.  PD-L1 Expression is Highly Associated with Tumor-Associated Macrophage Infiltration in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Rui Deng; Juan Lu; Xiong Liu; Xiao-Hong Peng; Jie Wang; Xiang-Ping Li
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 4.  Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and macrophages in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weixing Liu; Chunyi Zhang; Gui Chen; Xiao Liao; Junyang Xie; Tianhao Liang; Wenjing Liao; Lijuan Song; Xiaowen Zhang
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Development and validation of the immune signature to predict distant metastasis in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Sai-Lan Liu; Li-Juan Bian; Ze-Xian Liu; Qiu-Yan Chen; Xue-Song Sun; Rui Sun; Dong-Hua Luo; Xiao-Yun Li; Bei-Bei Xiao; Jin-Jie Yan; Zi-Jian Lu; Shu-Mei Yan; Li Yuan; Lin-Quan Tang; Jian-Ming Li; Hai-Qiang Mai
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 13.751

6.  Immune infiltration in nasopharyngeal carcinoma based on gene expression.

Authors:  Meng-Si Luo; Guan-Jiang Huang; Bao-Xinzi Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Tumor elastography and its association with cell-free tumor DNA in the plasma of breast tumor patients: a pilot study.

Authors:  Yi Hao; Wei Yang; Wenyi Zheng; Xiaona Chen; Hui Wang; Liang Zhao; Jinfeng Xu; Xia Guo
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-08

Review 8.  Targeting of CD163+ Macrophages in Inflammatory and Malignant Diseases.

Authors:  Maria K Skytthe; Jonas Heilskov Graversen; Søren K Moestrup
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 9.  Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts in Undifferentiated Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Putative Role for the EBV-Encoded Oncoprotein, LMP1.

Authors:  Mhairi A Morris
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2019-12-20

10.  High COX-2 expression in cancer-associated fibiroblasts contributes to poor survival and promotes migration and invasiveness in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Yinghong Zhu; Chen Shi; Liang Zeng; Guizhu Liu; Weihong Jiang; Xin Zhang; Shilian Chen; Jiaojiao Guo; Xingxing Jian; Jian Ouyang; Jiliang Xia; Chunmei Kuang; Songqing Fan; Xuan Wu; Yangbowen Wu; Wen Zhou; Yongjun Guan
Journal:  Mol Carcinog       Date:  2019-12-22       Impact factor: 4.784

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.