Author
Listed:
- Qiong-wen Zhang
- Lei Liu
- Chang-yang Gong
- Hua-shan Shi
- Yun-hui Zeng
- Xiao-ze Wang
- Yu-wei Zhao
- Yu-quan Wei
Abstract
Purpose: Tumor associated macrophages (TAMs) are considered with the capacity to have both negative and positive effects on tumor growth. The prognostic value of TAM for survival in patients with solid tumor remains controversial. Experimental Design: We conducted a meta-analysis of 55 studies (n = 8,692 patients) that evaluated the correlation between TAM (detected by immunohistochemistry) and clinical staging, overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS). The impact of M1 and M2 type TAM (n = 5) on survival was also examined. Results: High density of TAM was significantly associated with late clinical staging in patients with breast cancer [risk ratio (RR) = 1.20 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14–1.28)] and bladder cancer [RR = 3.30 (95%CI, 1.56–6.96)] and with early clinical staging in patients with ovarian cancer [RR = 0.52 (95%CI, 0.35–0.77)]. Negative effects of TAM on OS was shown in patients with gastric cancer [RR = 1.64 (95%CI, 1.24–2.16)], breast cancer [RR = 8.62 (95%CI, 3.10–23.95)], bladder cancer [RR = 5.00 (95%CI, 1.98–12.63)], ovarian cancer [RR = 2.55 (95%CI, 1.60–4.06)], oral cancer [RR = 2.03 (95%CI, 1.47–2.80)] and thyroid cancer [RR = 2.72 (95%CI, 1.26–5.86)],and positive effects was displayed in patients with colorectal cancer [RR = 0.64 (95%CI, 0.43–0.96)]. No significant effect was showed between TAM and DFS. There was also no significant effect of two phenotypes of TAM on survival. Conclusions: Although some modest bias cannot be excluded, high density of TAM seems to be associated with worse OS in patients with gastric cancer, urogenital cancer and head and neck cancer, with better OS in patients with colorectal cancer.
Suggested Citation
Qiong-wen Zhang & Lei Liu & Chang-yang Gong & Hua-shan Shi & Yun-hui Zeng & Xiao-ze Wang & Yu-wei Zhao & Yu-quan Wei, 2012.
"Prognostic Significance of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Solid Tumor: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-14, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0050946
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050946
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0050946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.