| Literature DB >> 34943854 |
Xue-Qiang Zhu1,2, Pei Lu1,3, Zhong-Lin Xu1, Qiang Zhou1, Jun Zhang1, Zhi-Biao Wang1, Feng Wu1,4.
Abstract
Previous studies have revealed that high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation can trigger an antitumor immune response. The aim of this study was to investigate immune response in tumor-draining lymph nodes (TDLNs) after HIFU treatment. Forty-eight female patients with biopsy-confirmed breast cancer were divided into a control group and an HIFU group. In the control group, 25 patients underwent modified radical mastectomy, but 23 patients in the HIFU group received HIFU ablation of primary cancer, followed by the same operation. Using HE and immunohistochemical staining, the immunologic reactivity pattern and immune cell profile were assessed in paraffin-embedded axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) in all patients. The results showed that ALNs presented more evident immune reactions in the HIFU group than in the control group (100% vs. 64%). Among the ALNs, 78.3% had mixed cellular and humoral immune response, whereas 36% in the control group showed cellular immune response. The numbers of CD3+, CD4+, NK cell, and activated CTLs with Fas ligand+, granzyme+ and perforin+ expression were significantly higher in the ALNs in the HIFU group. It was concluded that HIFU could stimulate potent immune response and significantly increase T cell, activated CTLs and NK cell populations in the TDLNs of breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: ablation; breast cancer; cytotoxic T lymphocyte; high-intensity focused ultrasound; immune response; immunomodulation; immunotherapy; lymph node; natural killer cell
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34943854 PMCID: PMC8699337 DOI: 10.3390/cells10123346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Immune reactivity of TDLNs in the control and HIFU groups.
| TDLNs Immunoreactivity Pattern | Control Group | HIFU Group |
|---|---|---|
| No immune response # | 9 (36%) | 0 (0%) * |
| Immune response | 16 (64%) | 23 (100%) * |
| Cellular & humoral immune response | 2 (8%) | 18 (78.3%) * |
| Cellular immune response | 9 (36%) | 3 (13%) * |
| Humoral immune response | 5 (20%) | 2 (8.7%) |
# No immune response includes unstimulated status and lymphocyte depletion; * Statistical difference is significant between the high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and control groups.
Figure 1Immunohistochemical staining for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded axillary lymph nodes of breast cancer patients. Positive expression of the stained cells is displayed in brown color in the HIFU group (left) and control group (right), including CD3 (top row), CD4 (second row), CD8 (third row), CD20 (fourth row), and CD57 cells (bottom row) Streptavidin-peroxidase immunohistochemical staining, ×400.
Figure 2Quantitative analysis of the positively immunostained CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20 and CD57 cells in the paracortical areas of axillary lymph nodes (ALNS) in the HIFU and control groups. Statistically significant difference between the HIFU and control groups: * p = 0.001; ** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical staining for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded axillary lymph nodes of breast cancer patients. Positive expression of the stained cells is displayed in brown color in the HIFU group (left) and control group (right), including Fas ligand (FasL+) (top row), granzyme (GzB+) (second row), and perforin (Pf+) ( bottom row) cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), Streptavidin-peroxidase immunohistochemical staining, ×400.
Figure 4Quantitative analysis of the positively immunostained Fas ligand (FasL+), granzyme (GzB+), and perforin (Pf+) cytotoxic T lymphocytes in the HIFU and control groups. Statistically significant difference between the HIFU and control groups: * p < 0.005; ** p < 0.001.