| Literature DB >> 35875135 |
Yutong Xie1, Huan Yang1, Chao Yang1, Liren He1, Xi Zhang1, Li Peng1, Hongbin Zhu1, Lei Gao1.
Abstract
Mounting evidence has revealed that many nontumor cells in the tumor microenvironment, such as fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal stem cells, and leukocytes, are strongly involved in tumor progression. In hematological malignancies, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are considered to be an important component that promotes tumor growth and can be polarized into different phenotypes with protumor or antitumor roles. This Review emphasizes research related to the role and mechanisms of TAMs in hematological malignancies. TAMs lead to poor prognosis by influencing tumor progression at the molecular level, including nurturing cancer stem cells and laying the foundation for metastasis. Although detailed molecular mechanisms have not been clarified, TAMs may be a new therapeutic target in hematological disease treatment.Entities:
Keywords: leukemia; lymphoma; macrophage; myeloma; prognosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35875135 PMCID: PMC9301190 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.933666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Tumor-associated macrophages could be alternatively activated related to tumor progression and metastasis. M2 TAMs, with a low antigen-presenting capability, get involved in angiogenesis, tumor cell invasion, resistance to therapy, and release of anti-inflammatory molecules, such as CCL17/18/22, TGF-β, IL-10. M1 TAMs could provoke a Th-1 response and secrete pro-inflammatory molecules, such as TNF-α, NO, CXCL9/10/11, IL-1/6/12/23. TNF, tumor necrosis factor; NO, nitric oxide; CXCL, chemokine ligands with CX3-C motif; IL, interleukin; TGF, tumor growth factor.
Figure 2Schematic representations of mechanisms between TAMs and tumor cells in Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (A), myeloma (B), and leukemia (C). In the different tumor microenvironment, TAMs infiltrate different tumor tissue to promote tumor growth. (A) In Hodgkin lymphoma, TAMs can activate HL cell proliferation through the STAT3 pathway and PI3K-Akt pathway. Besides, M1 macrophage polarization can be predominated by the NF-κB and STAT1 pathways in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. (B) CCL2 induces MCPIP1 expression via the JAK2-STAT3 signaling pathway in the MM bone marrow microenvironment. TAMs can also secrete proangiogenic cytokines like VEGF in MM microenvironment. (C) In the leukemia microenvironment, CSF-1R signaling paves the way for TAM recruitment. Gfi1 polarizes M1 phenotype macrophages into M2 macrophages to suppress the immune system and MOZ is a direct target of miR-223 promoting monocyte-to-macrophage development and M1 polarization. STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription; EGF, epidermal growth factor; IDO-1, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase; CSF1R, colony-stimulating factor receptor; CSF-1, colony-stimulating factor-1; GM-CSF, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor; TNF- α, tumor necrosis factor-α; NSE, neuron-specific enolase; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; MOZ, monocytic leukemia zinc-finger; Gfi1, growth factor independent 1; Arg-2, arginase-1; PB, peripheral blood; TAM, tumor-associated macrophage.
Pathways shifting macrophage polarization in hematological malignancies.
| Disease | Mechanism of Action | Results |
|---|---|---|
| HL | PI3K-Akt pathway | Leading M1 type macrophage to M2 type |
| DLBCL | GM-CSF synergistic enhancement effect | Enhancing M1 polarization from M2 |
| DLBL | NSE protein mediates nuclear p50 translocation | Promoting M2 polarization and migration ability of macrophage |
| PTCL | GATA3-dependent mechanism | M2 macrophage differentiation |
| FL | CSF-1R inhibition by PLX3397 | repolarization towards an M1-like phenotype |
| MM | Inactivation of CCL2-CCR2 | Macrophage bone marrow homing, proliferation, and polarization |
| MM | STAT3 pathway | A Janus kinase (JAK)2 inhibitor was correlated to the pro-tumor effect |
| MM | Exosome-derived miR-let-7c promotes angiogenesis | Polarizing M2 macrophages in MM microenvironment |
| MM | CSF1R blockade | Inhibits myeloma-associated macrophage polarizing to M2 type |
| T-ALL | CXCR4/CXCL12 axis | Inhibiting TAM polarization towards M1 phenotype |
| AML | Demonstrating an arginase-dependent ability of AML | Suppressive M2-like phenotype |
| AML | Expressing Gfi1 | Polarizing M1 phenotype macrophage into M2 |
| AML | MOZ Forms an Autoregulatory Feedback Loop with miR-223 | Promoting monocyte-to-macrophage development and M1 polarization |
| AML | Inhibiting CSF1R, in the presence of GM-CSF | Reprogramed MΦ orientation and promoted myeloblast apoptosis |
| CLL | IFN-γ | Reprogramming tool to polarize NLCs to M1 state |
| CLL | CSF-1R signaling inhibition | LAMs polarization blocking |
The role and prognostic markers of TAMs in hematological malignancies.
| Disease | Reference | Marker | Number of Patients | Survival Correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cHL | Karihtala et al. ( | PD-L1, IDO-1 | 130 | High proportions of PD-L1 and IDO-1 TAMs are associated with unfavorable outcomes |
| Carey et al. ( | PD-L1 | 180 | Increased PD-L1 expression had superior PFS | |
| Kayal et al. ( | CD68 | 100 | CD68 TAM marker does not have prognostic value | |
| Suh et al. ( | CD68, CD163 | 144 | CD163 is a better prognostic marker of macrophages than CD68 | |
| DLBCL | Marchesi et al. ( | CD68/CD163 | 61 | High CD68/CD163 M2 TAM is |
| Wang et al. ( | CD163 | 355 | LMR was negatively correlated with CD163 M2 TAM | |
| Cencini et al. ( | CD68/CD163 | 37 | CD68+/CD163+ TAM have a prognostic role for IPI ≥ 2 DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP | |
| McCord et al. ( | PD-L1 | 777 | PD-L1 did not identify high-risk in | |
| Pollari et al. ( | PD-L1/CD68 | 74 | High PD-L1/CD68 macrophages predict favorable survival | |
| FL | Kridel et al. ( | CD163 | 186 | CD163 TAM predict outcome dependent on treatment received |
| Kelley et al. ( | CD68 | 94 | CD68 TAMs is related to the prognosis | |
| Bjoürck et al. ( | CD68 | 57 | Patients with an increased number of CD68 TAMs had longer survival | |
| Kridel et al. ( | CD163 | 395 | CD163 macrophages can predict the prognosis depending on the treatment | |
| SMZL | Vincent-Fabert et al. ( | PD-L1 | 54 | Exhibiting inflammation with the expression of PD-L1 |
| PTCL | Sugaya et al. ( | CD163 | 28 | CD163 M2 TAMs was linked to a poor clinical prognosis |
| Iqbal et al. ( | CD68 | 372 | CD68 TAM differentiation by GATA3 related to worse prognosis | |
| ATLL | Saito et al. ( | CD204 | 58 | CD204 TAMs were closely associated with lymphoma cell proliferation |
| MM | Andersen et al. ( | CD163 | 131 | Soluble CD163 was found to be a prognostic marker |
| Suyanı et al. ( | CD163 | 68 | High MVD was found to be associated with increased CD163 TAM | |
| Chen et al. ( | iNOS, CD163 | 240 | iNOS and CD163 TAMs as independent prognostic factors | |
| Wang et al. ( | CD163 | 198 | High CD163 TAM correlate with poor prognosis |
PFS, progression-free survival; LMR, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio; MVD, microvessel density.