Skip to main content

Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia predicts favorable clinical outcome in solid tumors: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Activated eosinophils have been deemed to affect carcinogenesis and tumor progression via various mechanisms in tumor microenvironment. However, the prognostic role of tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia (TATE) in human cancers remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to better comprehend the association between TATE and clinical outcomes of patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase and EBSCO to determine the researches assessing the association between TATE and overall survival (OS) and/or disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with cancer, then combined relevant data into hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (OR) for OS, DFS and clinicopathological features including lymph node metastasis etc. with STATA 12.0.

Results

Twenty six researches with 6384 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that the presence of TATE was significantly associated with improved OS, but not with DFS in all types of cancers. In stratified analyses based on cancer types, pooled results manifested that the infiltration of eosinophils was remarkably associated with better OS in esophageal carcinoma and colorectal cancer. In addition, TATE significantly inversely correlated with lymph node metastasis, tumor stage and lymphatic invasion of cancer.

Conclusion

TATE promotes survival in cancer patients, suggesting that it is a valuable prognostic biomarker and clinical application of biological response modifiers or agonists promoting TATE may be the novel therapeutic strategy for patients.

Peer Review reports

Background

Tumor microenvironment (TME) linked closely with the initiation, promotion, and progression of cancer [1]. Innate and adaptive immunocytes such as mast cells, macrophages and memory T lymphocytes etc. are the vital components of TME [2]. Multitudinous studies have demonstrated that these immune cells were significantly associated with survival in solid tumors [3, 4]. However, it is essential to distinguish among different types of immune cells as they may play differential roles in the TME. Eosinophils, as the important component of innate immune cells, have proven to play significant roles in a multitude of solid tumors.

Eosinophils are granulocytic leukocytes that are associated with multitudinous pathologic conditions including allergic reactions, parasitic and bacterial infections etc. [5] These cells secrete massive proteins and cytokines upon activation and are involved in a variety of other functions including inducing tissue remodeling and promoting antigen presentation [6]. In the last decade, activated eosinophils have been deemed to affect carcinogenesis and tumor progression via various mechanisms including modulating innate and adaptive immune responses in TME [7]. Eosinophils infiltrating into tumor is also called tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia (TATE) [8]. Recent researches have investigated the TATE in tumor progression and survival, but their results were inconsistent even contradictory [9]. Hence, it needs further evaluation. In addition, the potential of TATE as prognostic biomarker and therapeutic strategy is also required to be investigated.

Herein, we carried out this meta-analysis to expound the relation between TATE and clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with cancer.

Methods

Search strategy

This meta-analysis was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) Statement issued in 2009 (Checklist S1). PubMed, Embase and EBSCO were searched for researches from 1980 to May 15th 2019. The keywords applied for search were: (eosinophil [Title/Abstract] OR eosinophilia [Title/Abstract]) AND (neoplasms [Title/Abstract] OR tumor [Title/Abstract] OR cancer [Title/Abstract] OR carcinoma [Title/Abstract]).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Researches included in this meta-analysis should meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) been published as original articles; (2) investigated human subjects; (3) examined eosinophils in primary tumor tissues; (4) reported hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or Kaplan – Meier curves of eosinophil infiltration with clinical outcomes.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: researches (1) were not published as research articles or full texts including commentaries, case reports, letters to the editors and meeting abstracts; (2) didn’t offer ample data to obtain HRs; (3) investigated eosinophils in metastases or not in tumor tissues.

Endpoints

In this study, OS and DFS were regarded as the primary and second endpoint respectively.

Data extraction

GM.H. and SM.W. reviewed and recorded data including number of patients, method to quantify eosinophils, cutoff value to determine TATE and time of follow-up etc. independently. OS, DFS and clinicopathological features such as tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) stage and lymphatic invasion were extracted from the text, tables, or Kaplan – Meier curves.

Quality assessment

Two authors independently assessed the quality of included cohort researches with Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), [10] and achieved consensus for each item under the help of third or more authors. Research scored 6 or above was regarded as high quality.

Statistical analysis

We combined extracted data using STATA 12.0 analysis software, and estimated statistical heterogeneity with the chi-squared based Q-test or I2 (25% was considered low-level heterogeneity, 25–50% moderate-level heterogeneity, and 50% high-level heterogeneity) [11]. Data were pooled based on the random-effect model in the presence of heterogeneity, [12] otherwise, the fixed-effect model was applied [13]. In addition, stratified analyses were conducted based on tumor types; sensitivity analysis, Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test [14] were employed to explore the impact of each research on the overall result and potential publication bias respectively. All P values were two-sided and below 0.05 was treated as statistical significance.

Results

Search results and description of studies

Flow chart diagram of research selection was displayed in Fig. S1. Twenty six researches with 6384 patients were ultimately included in this meta-analysis [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. And all the researches were scored 6 or above after careful evaluation with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS); Characteristics of those researches being in the light of the inclusion criteria and suitable for data incorporation were exhibited in Table 1 and Table S1.

Table 1 Main characteristics of the included studies

Meta-analyses

Overall survival (OS)

In this meta-analysis, we discovered that the presence of TATE was notably associated with improved OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99, P = 0.041) in patients with solid tumor. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Forest plots describing HR of the association between TATE and OS in human solid tumors

In stratified analyses according to tumor types, the combined results manifested that TATE was markedly associated with better OS in colorectal cancer (CRC) (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84, P = 0.000), with no heterogeneity detected (I2 = 0%, P = 0.449). Similar data was obtained between TATE and OS in esophageal carcinoma (EC) (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88, P = 0.026); Whereas no distinct relation existed between eosinophil infiltration and OS in oral cancer (OC) (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49, P = 0.657), laryngeal carcinoma (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.48, P = 0.599), Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.69, P = 0.741) or cervical cancer (HR = 2.14, 95% CI 0.38 to 12.24, P = 0.391). (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure2

Stratified analyses describing HRs of the association between TATE and OS

Disease-free survival (DFS)

As for DFS, the meta-analysis indicated that no noticeable association existed between eosinophil infiltration and DFS (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.77, P = 0.598) in solid tumors. (Fig. 3) In the stratified analyses, the incorporated results revealed that TATE was not significantly associated with improved DFS in oral cancer (HR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.15, P = 0.253), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (HR = 0,50, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.08, P = 0.079) or Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.98, P = 0.657). (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure3

Forest plots describing HR of the association between TATE and DFS in human solid tumors

Fig. 4
figure4

Stratified analyses describing HRs of the association between eosinophil infiltration and DFS

Clinicopathological features

We next tested the relation between TATE and clinicopathological features, and found that TATE was remarkably inversely correlated with lymph node metastasis (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.87, P = 0.007), TNM stage (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.58, P = 0.013) and lymphatic invasion (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, P = 0.018), but not with vascular invasion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25, P = 0.308) of patients. (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure5

Forest plots indicating ORs of the association between eosinophil infiltration and clinicopathological feature

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that each included research had no impact on the overall result for OS or DFS. (Fig. S2).

Publication bias

No publication bias existed between TATE and OS (P = 0.152) or DFS (P = 0.876) in patients by Funnel plot (Fig. S3) and Egger’s test.

Discussion

Eosinophilia is commonly associated with allergies, helminth infections and several inflammatory states. Recently, it has also been noted in human solid tumors. The present meta-analysis revealed that TATE had a positive effect in improving survival in human solid tumors, especially in CRC and EC. Moreover, It significantly inversely correlated with lymph node metastasis etc. of tumor. Hence, these data offered important evidence in uncovering the positive prognostic role of TATE in human solid tumors.

The close relation between TATE and better clinical outcome identified in this study possibly attribute to the following reasons: eosinophils in the TME can express same receptors and mediators such as granzyme A etc. as cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and be directly involved in anti-tumor response, [41] and they can also secret several chemokines including CCL5, CXCL9 to promote anti-tumor immunity through attracting CD8+ T cells to the tumor site [42]. In addition, eosinophils are capable of regulating immunity, for instance, they can release major basic protein (MBP), a highly cationic protein to stimulate maturation of dendritic cells by increasing cell surface activation markers including MHC-II, CD80 and CD86, [43] which has the potential to overcome immune tolerance and induce anti-tumor immunity with the powerful antigen-presentation ability [44]. Furthermore, they can induce cell death of various cell lines such as colo-205 cell line with some selectivity in their tumoricidal properties, which are dependent on the CD11a/CD18-mediated stable contacts with target cells [45]. Hence, it is rational to conclude that TATE is capable of regulating tissue homeostasis of the TME and inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis thereby improving survival. However, in other tumor types, TATE as a prognostic marker for survival has been a controversial issue. This may be because of differences in methods of counting TATE as well as heterogeneity of material.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cytokines such as IL-2, IL-4 could recruit eosinophils and lead to eosinophilia and enhanced eosinophil activation, thereby exert potent anti-tumor immune responses [41, 46]. Thus, based on our present result that TATE improving survival in human solid tumors identified in this study and the function of IL-2 and IL-4 stated above, we harbor the idea that clinical application of biological response modifiers (BRM) such as carrier-assisted recombined human IL-2 /or IL-4 may have the potential to treat human solid tumors.

Quite a few limitations should be noted from this study. First, morphometric analyses for TATE adopted in included researches were not exactly consistent. In addition, researches with negative results might not be published, which might result in potential publication bias.

Conclusions

TATE promotes survival in solid tumors especially in CRC and EC, suggesting that it is a valuable prognostic biomarker and clinical application of biological response modifiers or agonists promoting TATE may be a novel therapeutic strategy for patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Abbreviations

TATE:

Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia

OS:

Overall survival

DFS:

Disease-free survival

HR:

Hazard ratio

OR:

Odds ratio

Cl:

Confidence interval

TNM:

Tumor, node, metastasis

OC:

Oral cancer

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

EC:

Esophageal carcinoma

NR:

Not reported

TME:

Tumor microenvironment

BRM:

Biological response modifier

References

  1. 1.

    Motz GT, Coukos G. The parallel lives of angiogenesis and immunosuppression: cancer and other tales. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011;11(10):702–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gajewski TF, Schreiber H, Fu YX. Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(10):1014–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hu G, Wang S, Cheng P. Tumor-infiltrating tryptase(+) mast cells predict unfavorable clinical outcome in solid tumors. Int J Cancer. 2018;142(4):813–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hu G, Wang S. Tumor-infiltrating CD45RO+ Memory T Lymphocytes Predict Favorable Clinical Outcome in Solid Tumors. Sci Rep. 2017:7(1).

  5. 5.

    Hogan SP, Rosenberg HF, Moqbel R, Phipps S, Foster PS, Lacy P, Kay AB, Rothenberg ME. Eosinophils: biological properties and role in health and disease. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008;38(5):709–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Akuthota P, Wang HB, Spencer LA, Weller PF. Immunoregulatory roles of eosinophils: a new look at a familiar cell. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008;38(8):1254–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kita H. Eosinophils: multifaceted biological properties and roles in health and disease. Immunol Rev. 2011;242(1):161–77.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jain M, Kasetty S, Sudheendra US, Tijare M, Khan S, Desai A. Assessment of tissue eosinophilia as a prognosticator in oral epithelial dysplasia and oral squamous cell carcinoma-an image analysis study. Pathol Res Int. 2014;2014:507512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Marichal T, Tsai M, Galli SJ. Mast cells: potential positive and negative roles in tumor biology. Cancer Immunol Res. 2013;1(5):269–79.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kuritz SJ, Landis JR, Koch GG. A general overview of mantel-Haenszel methods: applications and recent developments. Annu Rev Public Health. 1988;9:123–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Peurala E, Tuominen M, Loyttyniemi E, Syrjanen S, Rautava J. Eosinophilia is a favorable prognostic marker for oral cavity and lip squamous cell carcinoma. APMIS. 2018;126(3):201–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Oliveira DT, Biassi TP, Faustino SE, Carvalho AL, Landman G, Kowalski LP. Eosinophils may predict occult lymph node metastasis in early oral cancer. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(6):1523–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Dorta RG, Landman G, Kowalski LP, Lauris JR, Latorre MR, Oliveira DT. Tumour-associated tissue eosinophilia as a prognostic factor in oral squamous cell carcinomas. Histopathology. 2002;41(2):152–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alrawi SJ, Tan D, Stoler DL, Dayton M, Anderson GR, Mojica P, Douglas W, Hicks W Jr, Rigual N, Loree T. Tissue eosinophilic infiltration: a useful marker for assessing stromal invasion, survival and locoregional recurrence in head and neck squamous neoplasia. Cancer J. 2005;11(3):217–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tostes Oliveira D, Tjioe KC, Assao A, Sita Faustino SE, Lopes Carvalho A, Landman G, Kowalski LP. Tissue eosinophilia and its association with tumoral invasion of oral cancer. Int J Surg Pathol. 2009;17(3):244–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ercan I, Cakir B, Basak T, Ozdemir T, Sayin I, Turgut S. Prognostic significance of stromal eosinophilic infiltration in cancer of the larynx. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;132(6):869–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sassler AM, McClatchey KD, Wolf GT, Fisher SG. Eosinophilic infiltration in advanced laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Veterans administration laryngeal cooperative study group. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(4 Pt 1):413–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Thompson AC, Bradley PJ, Griffin NR. Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia and long-term prognosis for carcinoma of the larynx. Am J Surg. 1994;168(5):469–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Fujii M, Yamashita T, Ishiguro R, Tashiro M, Kameyama K. Significance of epidermal growth factor receptor and tumor associated tissue eosinophilia in the prognosis of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2002;29(2):175–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Leighton SE, Teo JG, Leung SF, Cheung AY, Lee JC, van Hasselt CA. Prevalence and prognostic significance of tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;77(3):436–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Harbaum L, Pollheimer MJ, Kornprat P, Lindtner RA, Bokemeyer C, Langner C. Peritumoral eosinophils predict recurrence in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28(3):403–13.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fernandez-Acenero MJ, Galindo-Gallego M, Sanz J, Aljama A. Prognostic influence of tumor-associated eosinophilic infiltrate in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88(7):1544–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nielsen HJ, Hansen U, Christensen IJ, Reimert CM, Brunner N, Moesgaard F. Independent prognostic value of eosinophil and mast cell infiltration in colorectal cancer tissue. J Pathol. 1999;189(4):487–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Prizment AE, Vierkant RA, Smyrk TC, Tillmans LS, Lee JJ, Sriramarao P, Nelson HH, Lynch CF, Thibodeau SN, Church TR, Cerhan JR, Anderson KE, Limburg PJ. Tumor eosinophil infiltration and improved survival of colorectal cancer patients: Iowa Women's health study. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(5):516–27.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Zhang Y, Ren H, Wang L, Ning Z, Zhuang Y, Gan J, Chen S, Zhou D, Zhu H, Tan D, Zhang H. Clinical impact of tumor-infiltrating inflammatory cells in primary small cell esophageal carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15(6):9718–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ishibashi S, Ohashi Y, Suzuki T, Miyazaki S, Moriya T, Satomi S, Sasano H. Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia in human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Anticancer Res. 2006;26(2B):1419–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hollander P, Rostgaard K, Smedby KE, Molin D, Loskog A, de Nully BP, Enblad G, Amini RM, Hjalgrim H, Glimelius I. An anergic immune signature in the tumor microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with inferior outcome. Eur J Haematol. 2018;100(1):88–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Keresztes K, Szollosi Z, Simon Z, Tarkanyi I, Nemes Z, Illes A. Retrospective analysis of the prognostic role of tissue eosinophil and mast cells in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Pathol Oncol Res. 2007;13(3):237–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    von Wasielewski R, Seth S, Franklin J, Fischer R, Hubner K, Hansmann ML, Diehl V, Georgii A. Tissue eosinophilia correlates strongly with poor prognosis in nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's disease, allowing for known prognostic factors. Blood. 2000;95(4):1207–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Enblad G, Sundstrom C, Glimelius B. Infiltration of eosinophils in Hodgkin's disease involved lymph nodes predicts prognosis. Hematol Oncol. 1993;11(4):187–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    van Driel WJ, Hogendoorn PC, Jansen FW, Zwinderman AH, Trimbos JB, Fleuren GJ. Tumor-associated eosinophilic infiltrate of cervical cancer is indicative for a less effective immune response. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(9):904–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bethwaite PB, Holloway LJ, Yeong ML, Thornton A. Effect of tumour associated tissue eosinophilia on survival of women with stage IB carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Clin Pathol. 1993;46(11):1016–20.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Flamm J. Tumor-associated tissue inflammatory reaction and eosinophilia in primary superficial bladder cancer. Urology. 1992;40(2):180–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Iwasaki K, Torisu M, Fujimura T. Malignant tumor and eosinophils. I. Prognostic significance in gastric cancer. Cancer. 1986;58(6):1321–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ono Y, Ozawa M, Tamura Y, Suzuki T, Suzuki K, Kurokawa K, Fukabori Y, Yamanaka H. Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia of penile cancer. Int J Urol. 2002;9(2):82–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Paz D, Chang KP, Kao HK, Lao WWK, Huang YC, Chang YL, Huang Y. Clinical implications of tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia in tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2018;129(5):1123–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Gatault S, Legrand F, Delbeke M, Loiseau S, Capron M. Involvement of eosinophils in the anti-tumor response. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012;61(9):1527–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Carretero R, Sektioglu IM, Garbi N, Salgado OC, Beckhove P, Hammerling GJ. Eosinophils orchestrate cancer rejection by normalizing tumor vessels and enhancing infiltration of CD8(+) T cells. Nat Immunol. 2015;16(6):609–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lotfi R, Lotze MT. Eosinophils induce DC maturation, regulating immunity. J Leukoc Biol. 2008;83(3):456–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Sheng KC, Pietersz GA, Wright MD, Apostolopoulos V. Dendritic cells: activation and maturation--applications for cancer immunotherapy. Curr Med Chem. 2005;12(15):1783–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Legrand F, Driss V, Delbeke M, Loiseau S, Hermann E, Dombrowicz D, Capron M. Human eosinophils exert TNF-alpha and granzyme A-mediated tumoricidal activity toward colon carcinoma cells. J Immunol. 2010;185(12):7443–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sosman JA, Bartemes K, Offord KP, Kita H, Fisher SG, Kefer C, Ellis TA, Fisher RI, Higgins TJ, Gleich GJ. Evidence for eosinophil activation in cancer patients receiving recombinant interleukin-4: effects of interleukin-4 alone and following interleukin-2 administration. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1(8):805–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81702803, GMH) and was also partly supported by Shaoxing Science and TechnologyPlanProject (2018C30055, LMH; 2018C30075, KFZ; 2017B70036, FX). We used the funding to perform data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GM.H. conceived of the study, participated in its design, extracted data, performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. SM.W. participated in data extraction; KF.Z., F. X. and LM.H. participated in statistical analysis and manuscript revision. W.C. and P.C. participated in its design and manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guoming Hu or Wei Chen or Pu Cheng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval was unnecessary because this study based on summary and analysis of the results of previous studies.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Flow chart diagram of study selection. Figure S2. Plots describing the influence of individual studies on the overall HRs for OS (A) and DFS (B) in human cancers. Figure S3. Funnel plots displayed the potential publication bias between TATE and OS (A) or DFS (B) in patients. Table S1. Characteristics of the included studies for OR analysis of clinicopathological features.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, G., Wang, S., Zhong, K. et al. Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia predicts favorable clinical outcome in solid tumors: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 20, 454 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-06966-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Tumor-associated tissue eosinophilia
  • Favorable outcome
  • Human solid tumor
  • Meta-analysis