Immune Disregulation in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Patients with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: A Single Pilot Study.
epidermolysis bullosa
genodermatosis
skin cancer
squamous cell carcinoma
Journal
Life (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-1729
Titre abrégé: Life (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101580444
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jan 2022
30 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
18
12
2021
revised:
24
01
2022
accepted:
27
01
2022
entrez:
25
2
2022
pubmed:
26
2
2022
medline:
26
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most devastating complications of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). We recently demonstrated a reduction in immune cell peritumoral infiltration in RDEB patients with cSCC, together with a reduction in CD3+, CD4+, CD68+ and CD20 lymphocytes as compared to primary and secondary cSCC in patients without RDEB. Recently, new molecules, such as high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), T cell immunoglobulin, mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) and Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), have been shown to play a role in antitumoral immunity. Patients with RDEB are known to be at increased risk of developing skin cancers, including the dreaded squamous cell carcinoma of the. Tendentially, cSCCs that arise in the context of EBDR are more aggressive and lead to statistically significant bad outcomes compared to cSCCs developed on the skin of patients without EBDR. In an attempt to study the microenvironment of these lesions, we conducted an immunohistochemical analysis study of proteins that could be actively involved in the genesis of this type of malignant neoplasms. In this retrospective study, the OH1-HMGB1-TIM3 activation axis, as correlated to the T lymphocytes cell count, was assessed in biopsy samples from 31 consecutive cases consisting of 12 RDEB patients with cSCC, 12 patients with primary cSCC and 7 RDEB patients with pseudoepitheliomatous cutaneous hyperplasia. Parametric Student's In RDEB patients with cSCC and with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, the expression of CD4 T helper lymphocytes was lower than in the peritumoral infiltrate found in primary cSCC. CD8 cytotoxic T lymphocytes were increased in primary cSCC compared to the other two groups. An increased HMGB1 expression was evident in both primary and RDEB cSCC. TIM3 expression was higher in RDEB patients with cSCC compared to the other two groups. A significantly reduced immunohistochemical expression of HO-1 was evident in the tumoral microenvironment of cSCC-RDEB as compared to primary cSCC. These data suggest that a reduced immune cell peritumoral infiltration in RDEB patients could be responsible, in the complexity of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis and host response, of the particular aggressiveness of the cSCC of RDEB patients, creating a substrate for greater local immunosuppression, which, potentially, can "open the doors" to development and eventual metastasis by this malignant neoplasm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is one of the most devastating complications of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). We recently demonstrated a reduction in immune cell peritumoral infiltration in RDEB patients with cSCC, together with a reduction in CD3+, CD4+, CD68+ and CD20 lymphocytes as compared to primary and secondary cSCC in patients without RDEB. Recently, new molecules, such as high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), T cell immunoglobulin, mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) and Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1), have been shown to play a role in antitumoral immunity.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Patients with RDEB are known to be at increased risk of developing skin cancers, including the dreaded squamous cell carcinoma of the. Tendentially, cSCCs that arise in the context of EBDR are more aggressive and lead to statistically significant bad outcomes compared to cSCCs developed on the skin of patients without EBDR. In an attempt to study the microenvironment of these lesions, we conducted an immunohistochemical analysis study of proteins that could be actively involved in the genesis of this type of malignant neoplasms.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study, the OH1-HMGB1-TIM3 activation axis, as correlated to the T lymphocytes cell count, was assessed in biopsy samples from 31 consecutive cases consisting of 12 RDEB patients with cSCC, 12 patients with primary cSCC and 7 RDEB patients with pseudoepitheliomatous cutaneous hyperplasia. Parametric Student's
RESULTS
RESULTS
In RDEB patients with cSCC and with pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, the expression of CD4 T helper lymphocytes was lower than in the peritumoral infiltrate found in primary cSCC. CD8 cytotoxic T lymphocytes were increased in primary cSCC compared to the other two groups. An increased HMGB1 expression was evident in both primary and RDEB cSCC. TIM3 expression was higher in RDEB patients with cSCC compared to the other two groups. A significantly reduced immunohistochemical expression of HO-1 was evident in the tumoral microenvironment of cSCC-RDEB as compared to primary cSCC.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that a reduced immune cell peritumoral infiltration in RDEB patients could be responsible, in the complexity of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis and host response, of the particular aggressiveness of the cSCC of RDEB patients, creating a substrate for greater local immunosuppression, which, potentially, can "open the doors" to development and eventual metastasis by this malignant neoplasm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35207500
pii: life12020213
doi: 10.3390/life12020213
pmc: PMC8877121
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Aug;34(8):1707-1714
pubmed: 31692111
Matrix Biol. 2017 Nov;63:1-10
pubmed: 28126522
Arch Med Res. 2017 Jul;48(5):423-431
pubmed: 29089150
Int J Dermatol. 1992 Jan;31(1):37-41
pubmed: 1737687
Arch Dermatol. 1992 Feb;128(2):201-9
pubmed: 1739298
Exp Dermatol. 2013 Jun;22(6):433-5
pubmed: 23711070
Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Apr;23(8):2991-8
pubmed: 12665595
J Leukoc Biol. 2009 Sep;86(3):573-6
pubmed: 19414536
Hepatology. 2014 Apr;59(4):1351-65
pubmed: 24677194
Pediatr Dermatol. 2007 Sep-Oct;24(5):474-82
pubmed: 17958791
J Immunol. 2006 Jan 1;176(1):12-5
pubmed: 16365390
Semin Immunol. 2019 Apr;42:101302
pubmed: 31604535
BMC Cancer. 2013 Jun 26;13:311
pubmed: 23803172
Annu Rev Immunol. 2010;28:367-88
pubmed: 20192808
Immunol Rev. 2007 Dec;220:35-46
pubmed: 17979838
Immunol Rev. 2017 Mar;276(1):97-111
pubmed: 28258697
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Nov;46(16):3007-15
pubmed: 20724142
Oncoimmunology. 2017 Aug 9;6(11):e1356148
pubmed: 29147608
J Dermatol Sci. 2017 Apr;86(1):37-45
pubmed: 28094098
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016 Aug 20;11(1):117
pubmed: 27544590
Free Radic Biol Med. 2011 Nov 1;51(9):1717-26
pubmed: 21867749
Am J Pathol. 2005 Apr;166(4):1259-63
pubmed: 15793304
Cell Rep. 2019 Nov 26;29(9):2689-2701.e4
pubmed: 31775038
Nat Commun. 2015 Jan 09;6:5932
pubmed: 25575023
Circ Res. 2007 Feb 2;100(2):204-12
pubmed: 17218606
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 May 15;13(10):2836-48
pubmed: 17504981
Hypertens Pregnancy. 2020 Feb;39(1):33-42
pubmed: 31718385
Front Immunol. 2013 Mar 20;4:68
pubmed: 23519706
Nat Immunol. 2005 Dec;6(12):1245-52
pubmed: 16286920
Nat Immunol. 2012 Sep;13(9):808-10
pubmed: 22910384
Nat Rev Immunol. 2015 Aug;15(8):486-99
pubmed: 26205583
Oncogene. 2017 Dec 7;36(49):6805-6814
pubmed: 28846111
Eur J Immunol. 2009 Sep;39(9):2492-501
pubmed: 19676072
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Nov 14;20(22):
pubmed: 31739489
Autoimmunity. 2007 Jun;40(4):285-9
pubmed: 17516211
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Mar 16;18(3):
pubmed: 28300768
Biomolecules. 2021 Aug 16;11(8):
pubmed: 34439887
Cancer Invest. 2008 Oct;26(8):843-51
pubmed: 18798064
J Cutan Pathol. 2018 May;45(5):337-347
pubmed: 29419888