-
摘要:
骨转移是恶性肿瘤常见并发症,其中乳腺癌和肺癌多为溶骨性骨转移,具有临床发病率高的特点,其临床表现为疼痛、高钙血症、病理性骨折等,严重影响患者生活质量以及缩短生存时间。然而,肿瘤细胞转移到骨微环境的机制尚未完全明确,最新研究提示骨转移出现临床症状前,肿瘤细胞和骨微环境之间存在相关调控的作用。本文从肿瘤细胞和骨微环境的特异性、肿瘤细胞与骨细胞之间的相互调控等方面进行综述,以期指导临床用药。
Abstract:Bone metastasis is a common complication of malignant tumors. Breast cancer and lung cancer are mostly with osteolytic bone metastases. The clinical manifestations of bone metastasis are pain, hypercalcemia, pathological fractures, etc., seriously affecting the quality of life of patients and shorten the survival time. However, the mechanism of how tumor cells metastasize into bone microenvironment is not completely clear. The latest studies suggest that before the clinical symptoms of bone metastasis, there is a regulatory role between malignant tumor cell and bone microenvironment. In this paper, we review the specificity of tumor cells and bone microenvironment, and the mutual regulation between tumor cells and bone cells to guide clinical medication.
-
Key words:
- Malignant tumor /
- Bone metastasis /
- Bone microenvironment
-
0 引言
鼻咽癌是最常见的头颈部肿瘤之一。我国为鼻咽癌高发地区,每年的发病率约为20/10万[1],由于鼻咽解剖结构及生物学行为的特殊性,很难行手术治疗,目前鼻咽癌公认和有效的治疗手段为放射治疗或以放疗为主的综合治疗。虽然放疗技术不断进步与放疗设备的不断更新,鼻咽癌的生存率有了较大的提高,但5年生存率仍为60%~80%[2],部分患者仍未能获得长期生存。TNM分期系统是鼻咽癌预后判断和指导治疗的重要依据,但临床发现同一分期患者即使接受相同的治疗方案,预后却不同[3-4],这提示鼻咽癌生物学差异的存在,仅基于解剖学信息的TNM临床分期系统还不能准确地预测鼻咽癌患者的预后。虽然EB病毒滴度、表皮生长因子受体、microRNA也可提示鼻咽癌的预后[5-7],但检测成本高,需要多中心合作,临床上可行性差。所以,亟需检测方便、价格低廉可预测鼻咽癌预后的标志物。
流行病学研究证实,约25%的肿瘤由炎性反应发展而来,其与肿瘤的发生发展密切相关并且影响肿瘤患者的预后[8]。炎性反应指标,如白细胞计数[9]、血小板计数[10-11]、中性粒淋巴细胞比(neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, NLR)[12-13]、血小板淋巴细胞比(platelet-lymphocyte ratio, PLR)[14-15]被发现可作为肿瘤的独立预后因素。这些血液指标检测方便,价格低廉,可广泛应用于临床,评估患者预后。本研究通过对91例鼻咽癌患者临床资料进行回顾性分析,评价治疗前PLR和NLR与鼻咽癌患者预后的相关性,为评估预后提供客观依据。
1 资料与方法
1.1 临床资料
回顾性收集2009年1月至2013年9月期间于西安交通大学第一附属医院和陕西省人民医院初治的91例鼻咽癌患者,所有病例均经病理证实。临床资料完整。排除标准:(1)合并有免疫性疾病以及其他恶性肿瘤的患者;(2)治疗前合并有急性或慢性感染;(3)合并有血液系统疾病、血栓或出血性疾病;(4)合并有严重的肝、肾疾病;(5)治疗前曾接受过放疗或化疗;(6)无远处转移。记录患者治疗前的中性粒细胞计数、淋巴细胞计数及血小板计数结果。
1.2 治疗及随访方法
入选患者采用3D-CRT或IMRT根治性放疗(有或无化疗),Ⅰ期患者仅接受单纯放射治疗,Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期患者接受以顺铂和5-氟尿嘧啶为主的辅助或同步放化疗。鼻咽原发灶和颈部转移淋巴结剂量为(70~76)Gy/(7~8)w/(35~38)f,颈部预防区域剂量为(50~60)Gy/(5~6)w/(25~30)f。根据患者的临床分期及不良反应给予2~6周期的全身化疗,化疗方案为:顺铂25 mg/m2,第1~3天静脉滴注;5-氟尿嘧啶500 mg/m2,第1~5天静脉滴注,每21天重复1周期。患者治疗结束后均定期随访,治疗后前2年,每3月检查一次,2年后半年复查一次,5年后1年复查1次。随访截止时间为2016年9月。
1.3 统计学方法
采用SPSS19.0软件对数据进行统计学分析。绘制ROC曲线确定PLR和NLR与总生存期(overall survival, OS)及无进展生存期(progression-free survival, PFS)的相关性,选取截断值。应用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析并采用Log rank检验来检验。采用Cox比例风险回归模型分析多种因素对生存时间的影响。以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
2.1 鼻咽癌患者临床病理资料
91例患者的基本特征资料见表 1,中位年龄53岁(12~72)岁,女30例,男61例,男女比例2:1,Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期患者分别为2、27、42、20例。单纯放疗患者9例,82例患者接受辅助或同步放化疗,所有患者均按期完成放化疗。中位随访时间为44月(6~87)月,其中44例出现复发或转移,39例患者死亡。患者的1、3、5年总生存率分别为92.3%、72.1%、56.8%,1、3、5年无进展生存率分别为82.4%、60.9%、53.3%。
表 1 91例鼻咽癌患者临床基本特征资料(n(%))Table 1 Basic clinical features of 91 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients (n(%))2.2 ROC曲线选取PLR和NLR预后相关截断值
以OS作为终点,PLR、NLR为检测变量,绘制ROC曲线选取截断值分别为143.3、2.6,两者的曲线下面积分别为0.640、0.739,见图 1。
以PFS作为终点,PLR、NLR为检测变量,绘制ROC曲线选取截断值分别为143.3、2.6,两者的曲线下面积分别为0.657、0.694,见图 2。说明治疗前PLR、NLR与患者的预后存在相关性,利用ROC曲线选取的截断值进行进一步生存分析。
2.3 Kaplan-Meier生存分析、Cox单因素和多因素分析
PLR≥143.3组和PLR < 143.3组患者生存曲线比较,差异有统计学意义(P=0.022),见图 3~4。NLR≥2.6组和NLR < 2.6组患者生存曲线比较,差异有统计学意义(P=0.044),见图 5~6。
Cox单因素分析显示除性别、年龄以外,TNM分期、治疗前PLR≥143.3、NLR≥2.6均是影响鼻咽癌患者OS和PFS的不良预后因素(P < 0.05),见表 2。Cox多因素分析显示治疗前PLR≥143.3(RR=2.491, 95%CI=1.139~5.451, P=0.022)、NLR≥2.6(RR=2.186, 95%CI=1.021~4.682,P=0.044)是鼻咽癌患者OS的独立危险因素,而治疗前PLR≥143.3(RR=2.461,95%CI=1.242~4.874, P=0.010)是鼻咽癌患者PFS的独立危险因素,见表 3。
表 2 影响鼻咽癌患者生存预后的Cox单因素分析Table 2 Cox univariate analysis of prognostic factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients表 3 影响鼻咽癌患者生存预后的Cox多因素分析Table 3 Cox multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients3 讨论
鼻咽癌对放射线高度敏感,因此放疗成为主要治疗手段。随着三维适形放疗和调强放射治疗的临床应用,鼻咽癌的生存率较前明显提高,但5年生存率仍仅为60%~80%。多项研究表明鼻咽癌患者预后与众多因素有关,包括患者年龄、临床分期、EB病毒感染及贫血等。此外,肿瘤的预后还与机体本身的炎性反应有关。炎性反应包含中性粒细胞、淋巴细胞、血小板、C反应蛋白等多种指标,其中PLR、NLR已受到越来越多专家的关注。本研究发现治疗前PLR和NLR可能成为鼻咽癌的独立预后因素。
恶性肿瘤患者常伴随血小板的升高,实验研究表明血小板参与肿瘤细胞生长、转移及血管生成[16]。临床研究表明血小板数目升高与肿瘤患者较差预后相关[11, 17]。此外研究表明中性粒细胞可促使机体产生多种促肿瘤生长因子和蛋白酶,促进肿瘤的发生、发展[18]。而淋巴细胞参与机体的免疫反应是抗肿瘤免疫的重要组成部分,淋巴细胞减少说明机体免疫机制异常,抗肿瘤免疫力下降,为肿瘤生长、浸润和转移提供条件。随着肿瘤进展,机体内炎性反应与肿瘤失去平衡,体内淋巴细胞降低,而血小板、中性粒细胞升高,相应的PLR和NLR比值也增高,机体内促进肿瘤炎性反应与抗肿瘤炎性反应的平衡状态被打破。因此PLR和NLR是反应机体免疫情况的重要指标,两者的升高能促进肿瘤进展,导致肿瘤患者预后不良。既往研究结果显示高PLR和NLR可影响宫颈癌、乳腺癌、结直肠癌等恶性肿瘤的预后[19-21]。而目前关于PLR、NLR与鼻咽癌患者预后相关性的研究较少,Sun等[21]分析了251例鼻咽癌患者治疗前PLR和NLR,结果证明治疗前两者水平是影响鼻咽癌患者生存独立预后因素。本研究结果显示治疗前PLR、NLR与鼻咽癌患者的总生存期和无进展生存期具有相关性。Cox多因素分析提示PLR≥143.3、NLR≥2.6和TNM分期是影响鼻咽癌患者治疗后的独立危险因素。PLR≥143.3组患者有较短OS和PFS,而NLR≥2.6组患者有较差的OS,和本研究结果相一致。因此,高PLR、NLR的鼻咽癌患者总生存率要低于低PLR、NLR的患者,且高PLR的患者复发或转移风险明显增加。据此,临床上或许可以通过提高鼻咽癌患者免疫功能及降低机体炎性反应,改善患者的预后。
但由于本研究是一个相对小样本的回顾性研究,不能代表大部分的鼻咽癌患者,且随访时间较短,存在一定的局限性,因此需要进行多中心、大样本的前瞻性研究来进一步证实。
本研究结果表明,治疗前PLR和NLR水平与鼻咽癌患者预后具有相关性,可能是影响鼻咽癌患者预后的独立危险因素,NLR和PLR的获取具有简便、经济的优点,可以作为鼻咽癌患者病情评估的一个有益补充,值得推广。目前鼻咽癌相关有效预后指标较多,笔者将在今后的临床研究工作中继续探索,将本研究指标与已有的有效预后指标进行比较,从而提高治疗前PLR和NLR水平这一预后指标应用于临床的合理性及可靠性。
作者贡献毛昀:论文设计、撰写及修改薛鹏:论文撰写、文献查阅李林潞、徐芃芃:文献查阅朱世杰:论文设计、审阅 -
[1] Bonetto R, Tallet A, Mélot A, et al. The management of bone metastasis[J]. Bull Cancer, 2017, 104(6): 585-592. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2017.02.004
[2] Karlsson T, Sundar R, Widmark A, et al. Osteoblast-derived factors promote metastatic potential in human prostate cancer cells, in part via non-canonical transforming growth factor beta (tgfbeta) signaling[J]. Prostate, 2018, 78(6): 446-456. doi: 10.1002/pros.v78.6
[3] Maurizi A, Rucci N. The osteoclast in bone metastasis: Player and target[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2018, 10(7). pii: E218.
[4] Xiao W, Zheng S, Yang A, et al. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of distant metastasis at initial diagnosis: A population-based study[J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2018, 10: 5329-5338. doi: 10.2147/CMAR
[5] Joeckel E, Haber T, Prawitt D, et al. High calcium concentration in bones promotes bone metastasis in renal cell carcinomas expressing calcium-sensing receptor[J]. Mol Cancer, 2014, 13: 42. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-13-42
[6] Wang Y, Xie Y, Oupický D. Potential of CXCR4/CXCL12 chemokine axis in cancer drug delivery[J]. Curr Pharmacol Rep, 2016, 2(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s40495-015-0044-8
[7] Komori T. Runx2, an inducer of osteoblast and chondrocyte differentiation[J]. Histochem Cell Biol, 2018, 149(4): 313-323. doi: 10.1007/s00418-018-1640-6
[8] Tan CC, Li GX, Tan LD, et al. Breast cancer cells obtain an osteomimetic feature via epithelial-mesenchymal transition that have undergone BMP2/Runx2 signaling pathway induction[J]. Oncotarget, 2016, 7(48): 79688-79705. http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5346745/
[9] Xiang L, Gilkes DM. The contribution of the immune system in bone metastasis pathogenesis[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2019, 20(4): pii: E999.
[10] Zhao E, Wang L, Dai J, et al. Regulatory T cells in the bone marrow microenvironment in patients with prostate cancer[J]. Oncoimmunology, 2012, 1(2): 152-161. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=10.4161/onci.1.2.18480
[11] Monteiro AC, Leal AC, Goncalves-Silva T, et al. T cells induce pre-metastatic osteolytic disease and help bone metastases establishment in a mouse model of metastatic breast cancer[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(7): e68171. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068171
[12] Sawant A, Hensel JA, Chanda D, et al. Depletion of plasmacytoid dendritic cells inhibits tumor growth and prevents bone metastasis of breast cancer cells[J]. J Immunol, 2012, 189(9): 4258-4265. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1101855
[13] Sawant A, Deshane J, Jules J, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells function as novel osteoclast progenitors enhancing bone loss in breast cancer[J]. Cancer Res, 2013, 73(2): 672-682. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2202
[14] Schernberg A, Blanchard P, Chargari C, et al. Neutrophils, a candidate biomarker and target for radiation therapy?[J]. Acta Oncol, 2017, 56(11): 1522-1530. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1348623
[15] Graham N, Qian BZ. Mesenchymal stromal cells: Emerging roles in bone metastasis[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2018, 19(4). pii: E1121.
[16] Luo G, He Y, Yu X. Bone marrow adipocyte: An intimate partner with tumor cells in bone metastasis[J]. Front Endocrinol(Lausanne), 2018, 9: 339. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00339
[17] Swami S, Johnson J, Bettinson LA, et al. Prevention of breast cancer skeletal metastases with parathyroid hormone[J]. JCI Insight, 2017, 2(17). pii: 90874.
[18] LeBleu VS, Kalluri R. A peek into cancer-associated fibroblasts: Origins, functions and translational impact[J]. Dis Model Mech, 2018, 11(4). pii: dmm029447.
[19] Spencer JA, Ferraro F, Roussakis E, et al. Direct measurement of local oxygen concentration in the bone marrow of live animals[J]. Nature, 2014, 508(7495): 269-273. doi: 10.1038/nature13034
[20] Hiraga T. Hypoxic microenvironment and metastatic bone disease[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2018, 19(11). pii: E3523.
[21] Devignes CS, Aslan Y, Brenot A, et al. Hif signaling in osteoblast-lineage cells promotes systemic breast cancer growth and metastasis in mice[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2018, 115(5): E992-E1001. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718009115
[22] Avnet S, Di Pompo G, Lemma S, et al. Cause and effect of microenvironmental acidosis on bone metastases[J]. Cancer Metastasis Rev, 2019, 38(1-2): 133-147. doi: 10.1007/s10555-019-09790-9
[23] Yuan FL, Xu MH, Li X, et al. The roles of acidosis in osteoclast biology[J]. Front Physiol, 2016, 7: 222. http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4919343/
[24] Arnett TR. Acidosis, hypoxia and bone[J]. Arch Biochem Biophys, 2010, 503(1): 103-9. doi: 10.1016/j.abb.2010.07.021
[25] Avnet S, Di Pompo G, Chano T, et al. Cancer-associated mesenchymal stroma fosters the stemness of osteosarcoma cells in response to intratumoral acidosis via nf-kappab activation[J]. Int J Cancer, 2017, 140(6): 1331-1345. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30540
[26] Shupp AB, Kolb AD, Mukhopadhyay D, et al. Cancer metastases to bone: Concepts, mechanisms, and interactions with bone osteoblasts[J]. Cancers(Basel), 2018, 10(6). pii: E182.
[27] Chu T, Teng J, Jiang L, et al. Lung cancer-derived dickkopf1 is associated with bone metastasis and the mechanism involves the inhibition of osteoblast differentiation[J]. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2014, 443(3): 962-968. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2013.12.076
[28] Qiao R, Zhong R, Chang Q, et al. Serum dickkopf-1 as a clinical and prognostic factor in non-small cell lung cancer patients with bone metastases[J]. Oncotarget, 2017, 8(45): 79469-79479. http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC5668059/
[29] Kimura Y, Matsugaki A, Sekita A, et al. Alteration of osteoblast arrangement via direct attack by cancer cells: New insights into bone metastasis[J]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7: 44824. doi: 10.1038/srep44824
[30] Lemma S, Di PG, Porporato PE, et al. Mda-mb-231 breast cancer cells fuel osteoclast metabolism and activity: A new rationale for the pathogenesis of osteolytic bone metastases[J]. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis, 2017, 1863(12): 3254-3264. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2017.08.030
[31] McCoy EM, Hong H, Pruitt HC, et al. Il-11 produced by breast cancer cells augments osteoclastogenesis by sustaining the pool of osteoclast progenitor cells[J]. BMC Cancer, 2013, 13: 16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-16
[32] Engblom C, Pfirschke C, Zilionis R, et al. Osteoblasts remotely supply lung tumors with cancer-promoting SiglecFhigh neutrophils[J]. Science, 2017, 358(6367). pii: eaa15081.
[33] Wang H, Tian L, Liu J, et al. The osteogenic niche is a calcium reservoir of bone micrometastases and confers unexpected therapeutic vulnerability[J]. Cancer Cell, 2018, 34(5): 823-839. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.10.002
[34] Lawson MA, McDonald MM, Kovacic N, et al. Osteoclasts control reactivation of dormant myeloma cells by remodelling the endosteal niche[J]. Nat Commun, 2015, 6: 8983. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9983
[35] Bodenstine TM, Beck BH, Cook LM, et al. Pre-osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells promote breast cancer growth in bone in a murine xenograft model[J]. Chin J Cancer, 2011, 30(3): 189-196. doi: 10.5732/cjc.010.10582
[36] Wang H, Yu C, Gao X, et al. The osteogenic niche promotes early-stage bone colonization of disseminated breast cancer cells[J]. Cancer Cell, 2015, 27(2): 193-210. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2014.11.017
[37] Bussard KM, Venzon DJ, Mastro AM. Osteoblasts are a major source of inflammatory cytokines in the tumor microenvironment of bone metastatic breast cancer[J]. J Cell Biochem, 2010, 111(5): 1138-1148. doi: 10.1002/jcb.22799