Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Cancer Immunology Essentials
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Immunology Research
Cancer Immunology Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Cancer Immunology Essentials
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Articles

Intraepithelial T cells and tumor-associated macrophages in ovarian cancer patients

Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia, Dan Wang, Liaquat Ali, Shashikant Lele, Michael A. Huba, Song Liu and Kunle Odunsi
Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia
1Department of Pathology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Paulette.mhawech-fauceglia@roswellpark.org
Dan Wang
2Department of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Liaquat Ali
1Department of Pathology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shashikant Lele
3Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael A. Huba
4Department of Pathology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Song Liu
2Department of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kunle Odunsi
3Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI:  Published January 2013
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The aims of this study were to evaluate the prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) in patients with familial ovarian cancer. Clinical and pathological information were retrieved from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (GRFOCR) in Buffalo, NY. Immunohistochemistry was performed on paraffin-embedded tissue specimens of GRFOCR participants using specific antibodies for CD3+, CD8+, CD25+, FOXP3+, CD68+, and CD163+. The correlation between the frequencies of TILs and TAMs and clinic-pathologic parameters were determined. Overall survival was determined using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. High tumor grade correlated with higher frequencies of CD3+ (p = 0.019), CD68+ (p = 0.025), CD163+ (p = 0.018), and Treg (CD25+ FOXP3+) (p = 0.024) cells. Higher stage correlated with higher frequencies of CD163+ cells (p = 0.012). There were correlations between the frequencies of CD68+ and CD3+ (p = 0.029), between Treg and each of CD3+ (p = 0.002), CD8+ (p = 0.018), and CD68+ (p = 0.028) cells. In univariate analysis, age and Treg significantly predicted patient survival. In multivariate survival analysis, Treg frequency was the only significant predictor of prognosis in patients with familial ovarian cancer [HR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.87 – 0.98; p = 0.012]. We concluded that interaction between TILs and TAMs in familial EOC also exists, and tumors with high Treg frequencies have a more favorable outcome. Thus, therapeutic strategies to modulate tumor Treg infiltration could be beneficial for patients with familial ovarian cancer.

This article was published in Cancer Immunity, a Cancer Research Institute journal that ceased publication in 2013 and is now provided online in association with Cancer Immunology Research.

Introduction

Epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality among women in western countries (1). The incidence of newly diagnosed EOC in the US is estimated to be 22,430 cases per year, with 15,280 deaths (1). The strongest risk factor for ovarian cancer is the presence of an inherited mutation in one of the two ovarian cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 or BRCA2. It is estimated that more than 10% of women in North America with invasive ovarian cancer carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (2, 3). The majority of these mutation carriers come from high-risk families where several members are affected by breast and/or ovarian cancer. It is estimated that 30% of families with a strong history of breast and ovarian cancers carry one of these mutations (4), but only one in 300 to 500 people in the general population carry the genes (5). While it is clear that alterations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are important for susceptibility to ovarian cancer, it is also well-known that the immune system has the ability to protect the host from cancer and “sculpt” tumor immunogenicity (6, 7). This interaction between the immune system and cancer is complex, consisting of a very delicate balance between immune activation and immune suppression mechanisms (8).

Immune surveillance plays an important role in tumor outcome in patients diagnosed with EOC (9–17). In the study by Sato et al., intraepithelial CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and high CD8+/regulatory T cell (Treg) ratio were shown to be associated with favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer (17). The favorable prognosis of intraepithelial CD8+ cells has been confirmed by other studies (11, 12). In contrast to TILs, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) have been reported to be associated with poor outcome in EOC (14), suggesting that they might play an immune suppressive role. Thus, TILs and TAMs could interact to modulate and shape the overall immune environment in EOC.

In an effort to define the role of TILs and TAMs in familial EOC using the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (GRFOCR), the goals of our study were (i) to evaluate the presence of TILs (CD3+, CD8+, Treg) and TAMs (CD68+, CD163+) in patients with familial EOC; (ii) to determine the interaction between TILs and TAMs; and (iii) to define the role of TILs and TAMs in the outcome of patients with familial EOC.

Briefly, the GRFOCR is a self-referred registry of families with two or more ovarian cancer cases in blood relatives. It was established in 1981 at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) by Dr. M. Steven Piver to study the incidence of familial ovarian cancer (18–21). The primary function of the registry is to receive family cancer information voluntarily contributed throughout the US by ovarian cancer patients, referring and concerned physicians, concerned women, and patients of the RPCI Gynecologic Oncology Department. The objectives of the registry include (i) obtaining detailed family histories from individuals who are apparently from families with two or more cases of ovarian cancer, or a syndrome possibly related to ovarian cancer; (ii) documenting through medical records and through pathologist review of tissues the occurrence of cancer; (iii) collecting, processing, and storing biological samples, when possible, from registry participants; and (iv) making the information and biological samples available for research under Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved research protocols. Registry participants are recruited through probands or index persons, and meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) family history of two or more cases of ovarian cancer; (ii) family history of one case of ovarian cancer and two cases of cancer at any other site; (iii) family history of at least one female with two or more primary tumors with one of the primaries being ovarian cancer; and (iv) family history of two or more cases of cancer with at least one case being ovarian cancer, and the other cancer considered to be of early onset (≤ 45 years old).

Results

Study population and tumor characteristics

Seventy-three patients with adequate tissue material were available for analysis of TILs and TAMs. Patient population and tumor characteristics are presented in Table 1. The age ranged from 26–80 years with a median age of 52. As expected, the majority of patients had FIGO Stage III disease (62%), tumor grade 3 (75%), and serous histology (60%). After a median duration of follow-up of 24.91 months, 30 patients were dead of disease and 43 were alive. The median overall survival (OS) was 58.81 months. Eleven of the 73 patients had BRCA mutation data (five had BRCA1 mutation and six had BRCA2 mutation) and the remaining 62 patients had undefined BRCA mutation status. Therefore, due to the small number of patients with information on BRCA mutation status, we did not further explore any potential association with TILs or TAMs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Clinical and histopathologic characteristics of 73 patients.

TILs and TAMs in familial ovarian cancer

TILs and TAMs in the intraepithelial compartments were counted, as illustrated in Figure 1. The mean cell counts were 55.60±56.13; 62.29±69.77; 27.60±21.46; 30.00±22.95; and 9.56±9.32 for CD3+; CD8+; CD68+; CD163+; and Treg cells, respectively (Figure 2, Supplementary Table 1). Next, we tested the association between the markers of immune cell subsets. As expected, and shown in Table 2, the frequency of CD3+ cells was positively correlated with CD8+ (p < 0.001), CD68+ (p = 0.029), and Treg (p = 0.002) cells. The frequency of CD8+ T cells was also positively correlated with the frequencies of Treg (p = 0.018). Furthermore, CD68+ was positively correlated with CD163+ (p < 0.001) and Treg (p = 0.028). Using the two sample t-tests analysis as shown in Table 3, we found that FIGO stage was negatively associated with CD8+ T cell frequency (p = 0.042) and positively associated with CD163+ cells (p = 0.012). On the other hand, tumor grade was positively associated with CD3+ (p = 0.019), CD68+ (p = 0.025), CD163+ (p = 0.018), and Treg (p = 0.024) cells.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Representative illustrations of intraepithelial infiltration by lymphocytes and macrophages in epithelial ovarian cancer. Immunohistochemistry performed for (A) CD3+; (B) CD8+; (C) CD68+; (D) CD163+; (E) Treg (40X magnification).

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2

Box plot for TIL or TAM counts on 73 patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Correlation between the counts of TILs or TAMs of 67 cases.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Association between TIL or TAM counts and FIGO stage and tumor grade.

Prognostic significance of TILs and TAMs

With regard to patient outcome, 30 patients were dead of disease. However, information on definite date of death was missing from six of these patients and they were excluded from further analysis. Thus, we ended with 67/73 with adequate follow-up information. In univariate analysis (Table 4), advanced age was found to be significantly associated with poorer overall sur vival (p = 0.002) among the clinicopathological variables. Using TIL and TAM counts, Treg was the only parameter to be significantly associated with overall survival in univariate analysis (p = 0.033, Supplementary Figure 1). The hazard ratio of Treg 0.94, indicated that it was associated with favorable prognosis. In multivariate survival analysis adjusting all clinicopathological covariates (Table 5), the only parameter that appeared to be a significant predictor of poor survival was Treg (p = 0.012). The hazard ratio of Treg 0.92 (95% CI = [0.87, 0.98]), suggested that it was associated with improved survival.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis of 67 patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis of 67 patients.

Discussion

There is a higher risk of ovarian cancer in individuals with a family history of one or more affected first degree relatives with ovarian cancer. While the lifetime risk of EOC in the general population is approximately 1 in 100, this risk increases to 1 in 40 if a first degree relative is affected by ovarian cancer (25). Indeed, an unaffected woman with 2–3 relatives with ovarian cancer had a 4.6 times increased risk compared to the general population risk, i.e., a 7.2% lifetime probability of ovarian cancer (25). Since it is also now clear that the immune system protects against development of cancer (7), our study addressed, for the first time, a potential link between anti-cancer immunity and progression of familial ovarian cancer.

TILs and TAMs are considered major components of the cellular immune response against cancer. While numerous studies have shown infiltration of ovarian cancer by CD8+ TILs to be positively associated with survival (9, 17, 26), multiple immune suppressive mechanisms have also been shown to counteract the beneficial effects of CD8+ T cells. These mechanisms include Treg that mediate homeostatic peripheral tolerance by suppressing autoreactive T cells (27, 28); co-inhibitory molecules such as PD-1 and LAG-3 (8); tolerance-inducing plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) (18); B7-H4+ macrophages (15, 16, 29); immune suppressive cytokines such as TGF-β (30); and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) (31). The majority of these mechanisms are orchestrated by ovarian cancer cells in order to create a microenvironment that favors escape from immune elimination (32).

In familial EOC, we showed considerable amounts of TILs and TAMs in the intraepithelial compartment, indicating that the immune response is still triggered in this population of ovarian cancer patients. We also showed evidence of a significant relationship among TIL subsets, and between TILs and TAMs. The relationship seen between Treg and CD68+ would suggest an interaction between macrophages and Treg in order to contribute to the profound suppressive environment in ovarian cancer. In support of this observation is a previous report by Kryczek et al. which demonstrated interaction between macrophages and Tregs in sporadic EOC (16). Furthermore, we found that as grade of ovarian tumors increased, the number of intraepithelial tumor-infiltrating CD3+, CD68+, CD163+, and Treg cells also increased. In line with this observation, we found that as tumors became more advanced, there was higher tumor infiltration by CD163+ cells.

Treg, as documented by CD25+ FOXP3+ cells in our study, are a specific population of T cells with immunosuppressive properties. Treg normally function as suppressors of inappropriate immune responses, preventing any unwanted autoimmune reactions (33, 34). Previous studies demonstrated an increase of Treg counts in late-stage and in high-grade EOC (10, 11). Also, infiltration of tumor cells by Treg seemed to suppress tumor-specific T cell immune response, leading to tumor cell growth. Infiltration of tumor cells by Treg was shown to be associated with poor survival in patients with EOC and in other solid tumors such as hepatocellular carcinoma (10, 17, 35). However, this finding was not confirmed by others (13, 34). The difference of results among studies could be mainly due to the methods used in the analysis of T cell subsets. Sato et al. found that high CD8+/Treg count ratio to be the strongest predictive factor for prolonged survival, with a nearly 70% reduction of mortality rate in patients with EOC. In our study on familial EOC, we found that among all immune cell populations and their ratios, Treg was the only independent prognostic factor in predicting favorable outcome in familial EOC. This finding is the first in the literature in familial EOC and it is consistent with the reports by others, where similar results were described in patients with sporadic EOC (13, 14).

Lastly, there are several limitations of the present study—the GRFOCR is a self-referred registry; the documentation of residual disease after optimal debulking (one of the prognostic factors in EOC) was not assessed in this study. The differences in clinical characteristics, together with the relatively small sample size used in this study, might contribute to the difference between prior studies of CD8+ T cells and our study. Also, disease-free survival could not be documented as the registry only knows whether a registry member is alive or dead. However, despite these limitations, our study is the first to shed some light on the role of the immune system in familial ovarian cancer.

In summary, our study supported a role for the immune system in the progression of familial ovarian cancer. Since the frequency of intratumoral Treg was the most significant predictor of outcome in this population of patients, future studies are warranted to examine the relationship between the known ovarian cancer predisposition genes and genes that regulate Treg differentiation and expansion.

Materials and methods

Patient population

Study subjects for this work derived from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (formerly referred to as the Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry) under a protocol that has been reviewed and approved by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute IRB.

Patients were included in our study only when a staging procedure was performed at the time of the original surgery, or within the following months using the FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) staging criteria (22). All patients received standard care for EOC consisting of cytoreductive surgery, followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. At follow-up, patients had two outcomes: alive (A) or dead of disease (DOD). Information on the status of the residual disease or time to disease relapse was not available.

Patient samples

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides were available for histologic review. The tumor subtypes and grade were re-reviewed for confirmation by one experienced pathologist (PMF). Histologic subtypes were based on World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors (23). The histologic grade was determined according to criteria used by the Silverberg’s grading system (24).

Immunohistochemistry

Four μm thick sections were deparaffinized with xylene, and washed with ethanol. Sections were cooled for 20 min and then incubated for 10 min with 3% H2O2 to quench endogenous peroxidase activity. Blocking was performed using serum-free protein block, Dakocytomation (Carpenteria, CA) for 30 min. A pretreatment with Tris Buffer saline solution/EDTA, high pH, for 10 min was used for CD3+, CD8+, CD68+ and steamer for CD163+ staining. Afterwards, sections were incubated with antibodies for 30 min at room temperature for CD3+, CD8+, CD68+, and for 60 min for CD163+. The description of the antibodies used are as follows: CD3+ (ready to use; polyclonal; 1:100; Dakocytomation), CD8+ (clone CD8/114B; monoclonal; 1:200; Dakocytomation), CD68+ (clone PG-M1; monoclonal; 1:3000; Dakocytomation), CD163+ (clone 10D6; monoclonal; 1:50; Novacastra, Cambridge, UK), CD25+ (clone 4C9; monoclonal; 1:50; Vector Labs, Burlingame, CA), and anti-FOXP3 (clone 259D; polyclonal; 1:20; BioLegend, San Diego, CA). Diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride was then added for development for 10 min, followed by counterstaining with hematoxylin solution. Treg was defined as CD25+ FOXP3+ cells and, for this purpose, a dual staining procedure for CD25+ FOXP3+ was performed as described previously (17). Negative control slides omitting the primary antibody were included in all assays.

Quantification of TILs and TAMs

Evaluation of the IHC slides was performed by two pathologists independently (PM-F and LA). At first, the entire tumor section was evaluated by using 20X objective lens on an Olympus microscope (Olympus, Holly, MI). Ten independent areas with the most abundant intraepithelial T cell infiltrates (CD3+, CD8+, Treg) and intraepithelial tumor-associated macrophages (CD68+, CD163+) were selected. Intraepithelial tumor infiltrates is defined by macrophages and T cells highlighted by immunohistochemistry that are seen in the epithelial tumor cells. Those seen in the stroma were not counted. The count is done at 40X magnification. Each pathologist counted 10 areas and scored their counts. The scores of the two pathologists were compared and when a discrepancy (count difference of more than 10 cells infiltrates) was noticed, the two pathologists sat down at a double head microscope to solve the issue and reach a final score. Disagreement was not very frequent between the first and the second read and occurred roughly around 5% of the cases. The mean number of tumor infiltrates per 10 high power fields was evaluated as continuous variable.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed by The R Project (36). The clinical parameters used for modeling are age, stage, grade, and counts of TILs and TAMs. To find the association between the CD counts and FIGO stage and tumor grade, two sample t-tests were performed to determine if two groups of cluster of differentiation (CD) counts differ significantly in different categories. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratio that represents the correlation between relative risk of death among patients and clinical parameters. The p value for the relevant parameter is derived from the Wald test. The proportional hazards assumption for a Cox model fit is tested using the cox.zph function in The R Project. Fair proportional assumption holds for each variable (p > 0.017) except CD163+. CD163+ is not a significant variable using either Cox proportional hazards model (p = 0.835, shown in Table 5) or logistic model (p = 0.594, data not shown). Hence, Cox proportional hazards models were used throughout the study. Pearson correlation coefficients are calculated to access the relationship of TIL and TAM counts. A p value of < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mrs. Cathy Fahey for her help and assistance in providing the data and specimens. Also, we thank Mrs. Mary Vaughn for her expertise in immunohistochemistry. This work was funded by the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, Buffalo, NY.

  • Copyright © 2013 by Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel R,
    2. Naishadham D,
    3. Jemal A
    . Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10–29.pmid:22237781
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Berchuck A,
    2. Heron KA,
    3. Carney ME,
    4. Lancaster JM,
    5. Fraser EG,
    6. Vinson VL,
    7. Deffenbaugh AM,
    8. Miron A,
    9. Marks JR,
    10. Futreal PA,
    11. Frank TS
    . Frequency of germline and somatic BRCA1 mutations in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:2433–2437.pmid:9796975
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Risch HA,
    2. McLaughlin JR,
    3. Cole DE,
    4. Rosen B,
    5. Bradley L,
    6. Kwan E,
    7. Jack E,
    8. Vesprini DJ,
    9. Kuperstein G,
    10. Abrahamson JL,
    11. Fan I,
    12. Wong B,
    13. Narod SA
    . Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:700–710.pmid:11179017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. James PA,
    2. Doherty R,
    3. Harris M,
    4. Mukesh BN,
    5. Milner A,
    6. Young MA,
    7. Scott C
    . Optimal selection of individuals for BRCA mutation testing: a comparison of available methods. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:707–715.pmid:16446345
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nelson HD,
    2. Huffman LH,
    3. Fu R,
    4. Harris EL
    . Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:362–379.pmid:16144895
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Dunn GP,
    2. Old LJ,
    3. Schreiber RD
    . The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu Rev Immunol 2004;22:329–360.pmid:15032581
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dunn GP,
    2. Old LJ,
    3. Schreiber RD
    . The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity 2004;21:137–148.pmid:15308095
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Matsuzaki J,
    2. Gnjatic S,
    3. Mhawech-Fauceglia P,
    4. Beck A,
    5. Miller A,
    6. Tsuji T,
    7. Eppolito C,
    8. Qian F,
    9. Lele S,
    10. Shrikant P,
    11. Old LJ,
    12. Odunsi K
    . Tumor-infiltrating NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cells are negatively regulated by LAG-3 and PD-1 in human ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:7875–7880.pmid:20385810
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Conejo-Garcia JR,
    3. Katsaros D,
    4. Gimotty PA,
    5. Massobrio M,
    6. Regnani G,
    7. Makrigiannakis A,
    8. Gray H,
    9. Schlienger K,
    10. Liebman MN,
    11. Rubin SC,
    12. Coukos G
    . Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:203–213.pmid:12529460
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Leffers N,
    2. Gooden MJM,
    3. de Jong RA,
    4. Hoogeboom BN,
    5. ten Hoor KA,
    6. Hollema H,
    7. Boezen HM,
    8. van der Zee AG,
    9. Daemen T,
    10. Nijman HW
    . Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes in primary and metastatic lesions of advanced stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009;58:449–459.pmid:18791714
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Stumpf M,
    2. Hasenburg A,
    3. Reiner MO,
    4. Jütting U,
    5. Wang C,
    6. Shen Y,
    7. Orlowska-Volk M,
    8. Fisch P,
    9. Wang Z,
    10. Gitsch G,
    11. Werner M,
    12. Lassmann S
    . Intraepithelial CD8-positive T lymphocytes predict survival for pateints with serous stage III ovarian carcinomas: relevance of clonal selection of T lymphocytes. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1513–1521.pmid:19861998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Adams SF,
    2. Levine DA,
    3. Cadungog MG,
    4. Hammond R,
    5. Facciabene A,
    6. Olvera N,
    7. Rubin SC,
    8. Boyd J,
    9. Gimotty PA,
    10. Coukos G
    . Intraepithelial T cells and tumor proliferation: impact on the benefit from surgical cytoreduction in advanced serous ovarian cancer. Cancer 2009;115:2891–2902.pmid:19472394
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Milne K,
    2. Köbel M,
    3. Kalloger SE,
    4. Barnes RO,
    5. Gao D,
    6. Gilks CB,
    7. Watson PH,
    8. Nelson BH
    . Systemic analysis of immune infiltrates in high-grade serous ovarian cancer reveals CD20, FoxP3 and TIA-1 as positive prognostic factors. PLoS One 2009;4:e6412–pmid:19641607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Shah CA,
    2. Allison KH,
    3. Garcia RL,
    4. Gray HJ,
    5. Goff BA,
    6. Swisher EM
    . Intratumoral T cells, tumor-associated macrophages, and regulatory T cells: association with p53 mutations, circulating tumor DNA and survival in women with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008;109:215–219.pmid:18314181
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kryczek I,
    2. Zou L,
    3. Rodriguez P,
    4. Zhu G,
    5. Wei S,
    6. Mottram P,
    7. Brumlik M,
    8. Cheng P,
    9. Curiel T,
    10. Myers L,
    11. Lackner A,
    12. Alvarez X,
    13. Ochoa A,
    14. Chen L,
    15. Zou W
    . B7-H4 expression identifies a novel suppressive macrophage population in human ovarian carcinoma. J Exp Med 2006;203:871–881.pmid:16606666
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kryczek I,
    2. Wei S,
    3. Zhu G,
    4. Myers L,
    5. Mottram P,
    6. Cheng P,
    7. Chen L,
    8. Coukos G,
    9. Zou W
    . Relationship between B7-H4, regulatory T cells, and patient outcome in human ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 2007;67:8900–8905.pmid:17875732
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sato E,
    2. Olson SH,
    3. Ahn J,
    4. Bundy B,
    5. Nishikawa H,
    6. Qian F,
    7. Jungbluth AA,
    8. Frosina D,
    9. Gnjatic S,
    10. Ambrosone C,
    11. Kepner J,
    12. Odunsi T,
    13. Ritter G,
    14. Lele S,
    15. Chen YT,
    16. Ohtani H,
    17. Old LJ,
    18. Odunsi K
    . Intraepithelial CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and a high CD8+/regulatory T cell ratio are associated with favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:18538–18543.pmid:16344461
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Piver MS,
    2. Mettlin CJ,
    3. Tsukada Y,
    4. Nasca P,
    5. Greenwald P,
    6. McPhee ME
    . Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Obstet Gynecol 1984;64:195–199.pmid:6738953
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.
    1. Piver MS,
    2. Goldberg JM,
    3. Tsukada Y,
    4. Mettlin CJ,
    5. Jishi MF,
    6. Natarajan N
    . Characteristics of familial ovarian cancer: a report of the first 1,000 families in the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1996;17:169–176.pmid:8780913
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. Piver MS,
    2. Tsukada Y,
    3. Werness BA,
    4. DiCioccio RA,
    5. Whittemore AS,
    6. Ponder BA
    . Comparative study of ovarian cancer histopathology by registry pathologists and referral pathologists: a study by the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:166–170.pmid:10926797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Piver MS
    . Hereditary ovarian cancer. Lessons from the first twenty years of the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Gynecol Oncol 2002;85:9–17.pmid:11925114
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Piver MS,
    2. Rose PG,
    3. Freedman MF
    . Change in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:678–679.pmid:3348332
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Tavassoli FA,
    2. Devilee P
    1. The International Agency for Research on Cancer
    . World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs Tavassoli FA, Devilee PLyonIARC Press-WHO2003;114–115.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Silverberg SG
    . Histopathologic grading of ovarian carcinoma: a review and proposal. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2000;19:7–15.pmid:10638449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kerlikowske K,
    2. Brown JS,
    3. Grady DG
    . Should women with familial ovarian cancer undergo prophylactic oophorectomy? Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:700–707.pmid:1407898
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Tomsová M,
    2. Melichar B,
    3. Sedláková I,
    4. Steiner I
    . Prognostic significance of CD3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:415–420.pmid:18037158
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Salvi S,
    2. Segalla F,
    3. Rao S,
    4. Arienti F,
    5. Sartori M,
    6. Bratina G,
    7. Caronni E,
    8. Anichini A,
    9. Clemente C,
    10. Parmiani G,
    11. Sensi M
    . Overexpression of the T-cell receptor beta-chain variable region TCRBV14 in HLAA2-matched primary human melanomas. Cancer Res 1995;55:3374–3379.pmid:7614474
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Curiel TJ,
    2. Coukos G,
    3. Zou L,
    4. Alvarez X,
    5. Cheng P,
    6. Mottram P,
    7. Evdemon-Hogan M,
    8. Conejo-Garcia JR,
    9. Zhang L,
    10. Burow M,
    11. Zhu Y,
    12. Wei S,
    13. Kryczek I,
    14. Daniel B,
    15. Gordon A,
    16. Myers L,
    17. Lackner A,
    18. Disis ML,
    19. Knutson KL,
    20. Chen L,
    21. Zou W
    . Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nat Med 2004;10:942–949.pmid:15322536
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Liang X,
    3. Peterson AJ,
    4. Munn DH,
    5. Blazar BR
    . The indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase pathway is essential for human plasmacytoid dendritic cell-induced adaptive T regulatory cell generation. J Immunol 2008;181:5396–5404.pmid:18832696
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wahl SM,
    2. Swisher J,
    3. McCartney-Francis N,
    4. Chen W
    . TGF-beta: the perpetrator of immune suppression by regulatory T cells and suicidal T cells. J Leukoc Biol 2004;76:15–24.pmid:14966194
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Serafini P,
    2. De Santo C,
    3. Marigo I,
    4. Cingarlini S,
    5. Dolcetti L,
    6. Gallina G,
    7. Zanovello P,
    8. Bronte V
    . Derangement of immune responses by myeloid suppressor cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2004;53:64–72.pmid:14593498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Yigit R,
    2. Massuger LF,
    3. Figdor CG,
    4. Torensma R
    . Ovarian cancer creates a suppressive microenvironment to escape immune elimination. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:366–372.pmid:20144842
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Dietl J,
    2. Engel JB,
    3. Wischhusen J
    . The role of regulatory T cells in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:764–770.pmid:17309663
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Barnett B,
    2. Kryczek I,
    3. Cheng P,
    4. Zou W,
    5. Curiel TJ
    . Regulatory T cells in ovarian cancer: biology and therapeutic potential. Am J Reprod Immunol 2005;54:369–377.pmid:16305662
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Sasaki A,
    2. Tanaka F,
    3. Mimori K,
    4. Inoue H,
    5. Kai S,
    6. Shibata K,
    7. Ohta M,
    8. Kitano S,
    9. Mori M
    . Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating FOXP3+ regulatory cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;34:173–179.pmid:17928188
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    The R Project Accessed from: http://www.r-project.org/
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Immunity Archive: 13 (1)
January 2013
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • Table of Contents

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Immunology Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intraepithelial T cells and tumor-associated macrophages in ovarian cancer patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Immunology Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Immunology Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Intraepithelial T cells and tumor-associated macrophages in ovarian cancer patients
Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia, Dan Wang, Liaquat Ali, Shashikant Lele, Michael A. Huba, Song Liu and Kunle Odunsi
Cancer Immun January 1 2013 (13) (1) 1;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intraepithelial T cells and tumor-associated macrophages in ovarian cancer patients
Paulette Mhawech-Fauceglia, Dan Wang, Liaquat Ali, Shashikant Lele, Michael A. Huba, Song Liu and Kunle Odunsi
Cancer Immun January 1 2013 (13) (1) 1;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • NY-ESO-1–specific immunological pressure and escape in a patient with metastatic melanoma
  • Hsp72 mediates stronger antigen-dependent non-classical MHC class Ib anti-tumor responses than hsc73 in Xenopus laevis
  • Human ovarian tumor ascites fluids rapidly and reversibly inhibit T cell receptor-induced NF-κB and NFAT signaling in tumor-associated T cells
Show more Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Cancer Immunology Essentials

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Immunology Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Immunology Research
eISSN: 2326-6074
ISSN: 2326-6066

Advertisement