↓ Skip to main content

Immunohistochemical Analysis of Foxp3+, CD4+, CD8+ Cell Infiltrates and PD-L1 in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Pathology & Oncology Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Immunohistochemical Analysis of Foxp3+, CD4+, CD8+ Cell Infiltrates and PD-L1 in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Published in
Pathology & Oncology Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12253-017-0270-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Stasikowska-Kanicka, Małgorzata Wągrowska-Danilewicz, Marian Danilewicz

Abstract

The immunoexpression of the PD-L1 and the number of immune infiltrating cells have been shown to be a significant prognostic factors in various human cancers. Immunohistochemical method was used to examine the immunoexpression of PD-L1 and number of Foxp3+, CD4+, CD8+ cells in 78 cases of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs): with better prognosis - OSCCBP (n = 37), and with poorer prognosis - OSCCPP (n = 41), and 18 cases of normal mucosa as a control. The immunoexpression of PD-L1 and the mean number of Foxp3+ cells was significantly increased in OSCCPP group in comparison to OSCCBP and control groups. The mean number of CD4+ cells was significantly increased in OSCCPP group in comparison to OSCCBP and control groups. CD8+ cells were significantly more numerous in OSCCBP group in comparison to OSCCPP and control group. In both OSCCPP and OSCCBP groups there were positive significant correlations between number of Foxp3+ and CD4+ cells. We found positive correlations between the immunoexpression of PD-L1 and numbers of Foxp3+ cells, and negative correlation between the immunoexpression of PD-L1 and numbers of CD8+ cells in both OSCCPP and OSCCBP groups. We found also significant positive correlation between immunoexpression of PD-L1 and the number of CD4+ cells in OSCCPP group. In conclusion, our findings support the hypothesis of involvement of Tregs and PD-L1 in OSCC development and progression.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 27%
Professor 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Unspecified 5 33%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#10,133,034
of 11,419,765 outputs
Outputs from Pathology & Oncology Research
#223
of 330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,617
of 260,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pathology & Oncology Research
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,419,765 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 330 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.