ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2025
Exploring macrophage polarization as a prognostic indicator for colorectal cancer: Unveiling the impact of metalloproteinase mutations.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nomogram model for prognosis of early colorectal cancer after endoscopic therapy: integration of intestinal microbiota and clinicopathological parameters.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Research Progress on Tumor-Associated Macrophages and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacrophages play a crucial role in the tumor microenvironment, displaying remarkable plasticity that allows them to either suppress or promote tumor progression. Their polarization into M1 or M2 phenotypes could have significant prognostic implications, and manipulating this polarization may offer a novel approach to controlling colorectal neoplasms.
aimTo evaluate the infiltration rates of M1 and M2 macrophages in colorectal neoplasia, specifically comparing cases with and without metalloproteinase mutations. Additionally, it sought to explore potential prognostic factors associated with the disease.
methodsThe study involved two cohorts of patients diagnosed with colorectal neoplasia: 33 patients with metalloproteinase mutations and 33 without. Macrophage quantity and polarization were assessed using markers indicative of M1 (iNOS) and M2 (CD163, CD206) macrophages. Prognostic factors and survival outcomes related to colorectal cancer (CRC) were also analyzed.
resultsAmong the 61 patients, 28 (45.9%) exhibited metalloproteinase mutations, while 33 (54.1%) did not. Tumor staging revealed that 16.9% were in stage I, 34.2% in stage II, 42.4% in stage III, and 8.5% in stage IV. The study recorded 12 patient deaths (19.7%), with 21.2% from the control group and 17.9% from the mutation group. M2 macrophages, identified by CD163 and CD206 markers, had mean counts of 23 and 17, respectively, with standard deviations of 21 and 17. In contrast, M1 macrophages, identified by iNOS, had a mean count of five per site, with a standard deviation of 11.
conclusionThe study found no statistically significant differences in macrophage density between groups, irrespective of metalloproteinase mutation status, age, gender, tumor region, staging, TILS, tumor recurrence, or clinical outcomes. No association was observed between macrophage polarization and CRC prognosis or survival. However, patients with metalloproteinase mutations demonstrated a better survival rate, suggesting a potential protective role of this mutation in colorectal neoplasia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.