Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32039007›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2019

Evaluating the Polarization of Tumor-Associated Macrophages Into M1 and M2 Phenotypes in Human Cancer Tissue: Technicalities and Challenges in Routine Clinical Practice.

Sharmilla Devi Jayasingam, Marimuthu Citartan, Thean Hock Thang, Anani Aila Mat Zin, Kai Cheen Ang, Ewe Seng Ch'ng

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 413 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
413citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
36.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

413 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 644 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

353 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sharmilla Devi JayasingamOncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Malaysia.
Marimuthu CitartanInfectious Disease Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Malaysia.
Thean Hock ThangInfectious Disease Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Malaysia.
Anani Aila Mat ZinDepartment of Pathology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia.
Kai Cheen AngInfectious Disease Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Malaysia.
Ewe Seng Ch'ngOncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute (AMDI), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Malaysia.
Universiti Sains Malaysia · MYAIMST University · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) as immune cells within the tumor microenvironment have gained much interests as basic science regarding their roles in tumor progression unfolds. Better understanding of their polarization into pro-tumoral phenotype to promote tumor growth, tumor angiogenesis, immune evasion, and tumor metastasis has prompted various studies to investigate their clinical significance as a biomarker of predictive and prognostic value across different cancer types. Yet, the methodologies to investigate the polarization phenomena in solid tumor tissue vary. Nonetheless, quantifying the ratio of M1 to M2 TAMs has emerged to be a prevailing parameter to evaluate this polarization phenomena for clinical application. This mini-review focuses on recent studies exploring clinical significance of M1/M2 TAM ratio in human cancer tissue and critically evaluates the technicalities and challenges in quantifying this parameter for routine clinical practice. Immunohistochemistry appears to be the preferred methodology for M1/M2 TAM evaluation as it is readily available in clinical laboratories, albeit with certain limitations. Recommendations are made to standardize the quantification of TAMs for better transition into clinical practice and for better comparison among studies in various populations of patients and cancer types.

Indexed as

cancerCD163CD68immunohistochemistryM1M2tumor-associated macrophages

Identifiers

PMID32039007
PMCPMC6992653
OpenAlexW3002902597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.