Abstract
Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) development involves inflammatory, angiogenetic, and fibrinolytic mechanisms, several components of which are now unraveled through intensive research. The urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is part of the plasminogen activator system and possesses inflammatory, angiogenetic, and fibrinolytic capabilities. As a first, this study aims to identify uPAR in the hematoma fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, and systemic blood from patients with CSDH and, if present, to investigate if the uPAR level at the time of surgery may be a predictor for later developing recurrent CSDH. uPAR expression in the hematoma membrane and dura mater was analyzed using immunohistochemistry and presented as the H-score of the positive immunostaining. The uPAR levels in the hematoma fluid and systemic blood were determined using a multiplex antibody bead kit (Luminex). Samples were collected at the time of the first CSDH surgery, and in the case of recurrent CSDH within 90 days, the samples were again collected at reoperation. A comparison of uPAR expression between the hematoma membrane and dura mater, as well as uPAR levels in systemic blood and hematoma fluid, was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. We included 112 patients, 26 of whom had recurrent CSDH. The median hematoma uPAR level was 22,125 (14,845–33,237) and significantly higher than the median systemic blood level of 789 pg/L (465–2,088) (p < 0.001). Similarly, the uPAR level of the hematoma membrane was 14.3 (7.54–44.8) and significantly higher than the dural uPAR level of 0.81 (0.3–1.98) (p < 0.001). For the first time, we identified uPAR in the subdural fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, and systemic blood from patients with CSDH. The high expression of uPAR in the subdural fluid and hematoma membrane indicates that the mechanisms of CSDH are predominantly in the subdural fluid collection and surrounding hematoma membrane.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
BACKGROUND
It has become increasingly evident that the pathophysiology of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) involves three linked processes, inflammation, angiogenesis, and fibrinolysis [1], which is supported by the discovery of subdural fluid biomarkers participating in all three processes. Although the pathophysiological processes of CSDH have been linked to several immunological, angiogenetic, and fibrinolytic mechanisms, the understanding of the pathophysiology underlying both primary and recurrent CSDH needs further clarification.
The urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) is part of the plasminogen activator system and has pleiotropic functions in both physiological and pathological processes. uPAR primarily functions as a receptor for urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) [2], which catalyzes the activation of the universally present plasminogen into plasmin, thereby degrading fibrin [3]. uPAR is one of the earliest mediators of fibrinolysis, both by fibrin degradation and by tissue remodeling caused by the recruitment and activation of monocytes and neutrophils [4]. Furthermore, uPAR expression is strongly activated during inflammation, immune responses, injury, and stress [3]. uPAR is also expressed in a large proportion of human cancers as an effector in oncogenic signaling pathways and has been shown to be a marker of invasiveness and aggressiveness in several cancers [3, 5]. Physiologically, most cells at rest have no uPAR on their cell membrane [6]. However, when activated, the secreted uPAR (suPAR) interacts in an autocrine and paracrine fashion with neutrophils and macrophages, enhancing the invasive and proliferative properties of these cells during inflammation [7]. Finally, uPAR has shown angiogenetic capabilities in both animal models and humans. In wild-type mice, the inhibition of uPAR reduces tumor growth by inhibiting fibroblast-induced angiogenesis [8], and in humans, uPAR can indirectly reduce the availability of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is known to be involved in the angiogenetic processes of CSDH [9, 10]. As the capacities of uPAR are similar to the processes involved in CSDH pathophysiology, measuring uPAR in CSDH patients is warranted.
By investigating the role of uPAR in CSDH, we aimed to [1] identify uPAR in the hematoma fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, and systemic blood, [2] investigate if the level of uPAR at the time of surgery for first-time CSDH may predict recurrence, and [3] examine if uPAR expression is different between the first and second operations in patients with recurrent CSDH.
We hypothesized that [1] uPAR is present in hematoma fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, and systemic blood from CSDH patients due to similar biological features in both CSDH disease and uPAR, [2] uPAR levels predict CSDH recurrence in patients with primary CSDH, as patients later developing a recurrent CSDH presumably hold a higher level of inflammation, angiogenesis and/or fibrinolysis, and [3] uPAR is elevated at the time of the second operation in patients with recurrent CSDH due to an increasing involvement of either of the three pathophysiological processes.
METHODS
Study Population
Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with CSDH diagnosed on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance were randomly included between January 2020 and September 2021 from the Department of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Exclusion criteria were known head trauma within 14 days of surgery and a previous intracranial operation for conditions other than CSDH. Each hematoma in patients with bilateral hematomas was considered a separate case, also regarding recurrence, as bilateral hematomas do not necessarily have an identical cellular composition. Therefore, unilateral or bilateral recurrent CSDH from bilateral CSDH was regarded as one or two cases, respectively.
Patient characteristics included sex, age, known head trauma, blood thinning treatment, preoperative comorbidity measured by Charlson’s comorbidity index [11], and preoperative symptoms. Specifically, we registered comorbidities with potential inflammatory involvement, as these may affect the level of uPAR. These comorbidities included current smoking [12], current alcohol abuse [13], hypertension [14], diabetes I and II [15], cancer [16], and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [12]. Radiological variables included midline shift, hematoma volume calculated by the XYZ/2-method [17], localization, and radiological subtype [18]. A recurrence was defined as the need for reoperation due to symptomatic ipsilateral re-accumulation of the CSDH.
The Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (Journal no. H-20051073) approved this study. Consent for inclusion was obtained from either the patient or the next of kin.
Sample Collection
Hematoma fluid was collected during a burr hole or craniotomy. To avoid the risk of blood contamination from surrounding tissue, the dura mater was left intact following bone opening. After the bone opening, the dura mater was carefully opened, leaving an intact outer hematoma membrane, and a blunt needle on a 10-mL syringe was inserted through the outer membrane. Ten milliliters of hematoma fluid was aspirated and contained in protamine sulfate and ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) containing siliconized vacuum tubes. Patients were excluded if the dura mater was damaged and a leak of subdural fluid was observed before sample collection. Corresponding systemic venous blood was drawn at the time of surgery. All samples were centrifuged at 7000 rpm for 10 min to remove cells and debris, and the supernatants were stored at − 80 C until later analysis.
Following fluid collection, a 5-mm dura mater biopsy was collected with an underlying outer hematoma membrane. The tissue was put aside in 4% neutral buffered formaldehyde immediately after the procedure. Biopsies were subsequently embedded in paraffin, cut in 4 µm slices, and stored at room temperature. Biopsies from the dura mater and hematoma membrane were technical challenges and could not be performed in all patients. Extending the burr hole was not permitted by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark, resulting in biopsies being collected in a small cranial opening with an often lesser quality that could not be interpreted. In particular, the number of samples from patients with recurrent CSDH was low, as these patients were typically reoperated using the burr hole from the primary operation, where the dura and membrane had already been harvested.
Luminex
The uPAR levels in both the hematoma and systemic blood were determined with the Luminex multiplex antibody bead kit (ProcartaPlex, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Denmark), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples were measured in simplex and the standard in duplex. Samples with a value above the calibrated standards were reanalyzed with increased dilution until the proper values were obtained. The uPAR values are presented as pg/mL.
Immunohistochemistry
uPAR staining was performed manually. The uPAR antibody (catalog number GTX100467) was obtained from GeneTex (Irvine, USA). Dilution was 1:500, determined using positive and negative control staining. The specimens were incubated at 60 °C for 60 min before being deparaffinized in Histo-Clear solution, rehydrated in graded ethanol, and submerged in water. The specimens were exposed to heat-induced epitope retrieval with a CC1 buffer for 15 min before staining with the primary antibody. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated antibody was used as secondary staining and was performed by incubation for 45 min. Envision DAB+ was used to visualize the reaction.
Assessment of Immunohistochemistry
All immunohistochemical (IHC)-stained specimens were digitally scored using the open-source software QuPath [19]. The dura mater and the hematoma membrane were digitally labeled, and positive and negative cells were identified based on the mean diaminobenzidine (DAB) signal in the cell cytoplasm. Cell expansion was set to 5 μm, and intensity threshold for uPAR was set to 0.2 for weak intensity (+1), 0.4 for moderate intensity (+2), and 0.6 for strong intensity (+3). The H-score was digitally calculated for both the dura mater and hematoma membrane by adding 3× percentage of strongly stained cells, 2× percentage of moderately stained cells, and 1× percentage of weakly stained cells, resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 300 [20].
Statistics
Patient characteristics were compared between patients without recurrence and patients with recurrence. Evaluation of the normal distribution of the data was carried out by visual inspection. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables; Student’s t test was used for normal distributed data; and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for non-normal distributed data. Differences between groups were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and presented with median difference together with 95% Hodges-Lehmann confidence intervals. Furthermore, the prognostic value was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) statistics presented with a 95% confidence interval. The AUC will be interpreted as representing “no better than chance” (~ 0.5), low accuracy (0.5–0.7), moderate (0.70.9), and high accuracy (> 0.9) [21]. In the analysis of the prognostic value of patients with bilateral CSDH, systemic blood was analyzed per hematoma case and not per patient case. Therefore, the systemic blood for a patient with bilateral CSDH was counted for both the right and left sides. As bilateral hematomas may recur on just one side, counting systemic blood per patient would result in systemic blood being analyzed in both groups. Consequently, the chosen method seems plausible. How patients with bilateral hematomas are statistically managed is a common challenge in CSDH research; however, it is often not often addressed [22]. Results are presented as median H-score (interquartile range (IQR)) for the IHC analyses and pg/L (IQR) for the Luminex analyses.
RESULTS
Study Population
We included 112 patients, 26 of whom had recurrent CSDH within 90 days. Samples were drawn from both the primary and secondary operations, if possible (Fig. 1). When comparing the sex of patients with and without recurrence, only one patient with recurrent CSDH was female (p < 0.001). Hematoma localization was different between the two groups, as a higher percentage of patients later developing a recurrent CSDH had bilateral hematomas (p < 0.001). Also, the number of patients that died was higher in patients with recurrent CSDH (p < 0.001). The remaining patient demographics were not statistically different between patients with and without recurrent CSDH. The full baseline characteristics can be seen in Table 1.
Immunohistochemical Staining
uPAR staining showed a marked difference in the number of positive cells between the dura mater and hematoma membrane. Positivity in the dura mater was limited to the cytoplasm of endothelial cells, scattered fibroblasts, and a few perivascular macrophages. There was a slight increase of positive cells toward the side of the hematoma.
In the hematoma membrane, there were numerous cells with positive, predominantly moderate cytoplasmatic reactions, including macrophages, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells. Moreover, there was a focal weak positive reaction in the extracellular matrix, which was not included in the digital scoring. Staining in some macrophages may be false positives due to deposits of hemosiderin, which had a similar color due to the chromogen used in IHC staining. Staining intensity was predominantly weak in the dura mater, as well as in the hematoma membrane (Fig. 2).
Comparison of Systemic and Subdural uPAR Levels
To identify a possible role of uPAR in CSDH, we compared uPAR levels between systemic blood and the hematoma fluid using Luminex and uPAR levels between the dura mater and hematoma membrane in IHC analyses (Fig. 2). The IHC analyses demonstrated a median H-score of 14.3 (7.54–44.8) for the hematoma membrane. This was significantly higher than the H-score of the dural uPAR, which was 0.81 (0.3–1.98) (p < 0.001). The median hematoma uPAR level was 22,125 pg/L (14,845–33,237) and significantly higher than the median systemic blood level of 789 pg/L (465–2,088) (p < 0.001) (Fig. 3).
uPAR Levels as a Predictor of Recurrent CSDH
To investigate whether uPAR levels measured in patients with primary CSDH could predict the risk of recurrent CSDH, we compared uPAR levels from the dura mater, hematoma membrane, systemic blood, and hematoma fluid between patients with primary CSDH without recurrence and patients who later developed recurrent CSDH.
We found that the AUC of the dura mater was 0.73 (0.57 to 0.89), indicating that the dural uPAR level could predict recurrent CSDH with moderate accuracy. However, the number of recurrent CSDHs in this analysis was 5, and the results should therefore be interpreted with caution. The comparison of uPAR levels in the hematoma membrane, systemic blood, and hematoma fluid could not predict recurrent CSDH (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 1).
The number of systemic blood samples is presented per CSDH case and not per patient. Blue dots are cases without recurrent CSDH. Red dots are cases with recurrent CSDH within 90 days. The dotted line represents the median. The scale of the y-axis in the comparison of blood vs. hematoma and dura mater vs. hematoma membranes differs.
Comparison of uPAR Levels in Recurrent CSDH Between the First and Second Operations
To investigate a possible increase in the pathophysiological inflammation during a recurrent CSDH, we compared the levels of systemic and subdural uPAR between the first and second operation in patients with recurrent CSDH. We found no significant difference between uPAR levels in systemic blood between the first or second operation (first operation: 657 pg/L (465–2670) vs. second operation: 751 pg/L (454–2076), p = 0.065) or in hematoma fluid (first operation: 22,487 pg/L (18,740–32,915) vs. second operation: 34,786 pg/L (18,710–44,399), p = 0.13) (Fig. 5).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify uPAR in hematoma fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, or systemic blood from patients with CSDH. We found increased uPAR levels in the hematoma membrane compared to the dura mater and in the hematoma fluid compared to systemic blood, indicating a possible role of uPAR in CSDH pathophysiology. Furthermore, we found that dural uPAR levels could serve as a predictor of recurrent CSDH, but the number of cases examined with recurrent CSDH was low. To provide knowledge of the potential pathophysiological role of uPAR in the process of CSDH recurrence, uPAR levels in the hematoma fluid were compared between the first and second operations for patients with recurrent CSDH, but no significant difference was found.
CSDH and uPAR
Detection of brain uPAR is not a novel entity, and uPAR has been extensively investigated in the pathophysiology of brain tumors, demonstrating a high uPAR level in malignant gliomas and metastases and a correlation between a high uPAR level and aggressive tumor activity and shorter patient survival [23,24,25,26]. uPAR is activated following a stress response and is strongly induced during inflammation [27]. The biomarker has been described in macrophages/microglia within the inflamed central nervous system (CNS) in Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, cerebral malaria, HIV, dementia, and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease [28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. As an interesting observation, the systemic uPAR levels of CSDH patients were comparable to systemic uPAR blood levels in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, suggesting a comparable pro-inflammatory state between these two patient populations [25]. From an angiogenetic perspective, upregulation of uPAR increases vascular permeability by increasing the degradation of VE-cadherin, an endothelial-specific adhesion molecule located at the junction between endothelial cells, resulting in an increased bleeding probability [35, 36]. In fibrinolysis, uPAR is indirectly involved, as several members of the fibrinolytic system, including uPA, plasmin, and metalloproteases, are all able to cleave uPAR [37, 38]. This interacts with the adhesive and migrative functions of uPAR and may result in a uPAR-derived fragment that reacts with fibrinolytic processes, possibly leading to pathological disorders [39]. Correspondingly, uPAR levels in healthy CNS have been described as low or absent [40]. Our study supports the involvement of inflammatory, fibrinolytic, and/or angiogenetic cascades in CSDH pathophysiology, including a possible contribution of the plasminogen activation system.
Molecular Risk Profile for CSDH Recurrence
The identification of a risk profile for recurrent CSDH holds substantial clinical potential, as it may lead to personalized treatment of the sub-cohort of CSDH patients in increased recurrence risk, while avoiding overtreatment of the entire CSDH population. Several studies on risk factors have been published, but the focus has largely been on patient characteristics [41, 42]. CSDH recurrence may be driven by a higher level of angiogenetic, fibrinolytic, and/or inflammatory involvement. As systemic anti-inflammatory treatment has proven successful in reducing CSDH recurrence, it is obvious that the involvement of specific inflammatory molecules may constitute a potential medical target [22]. This has been investigated in a few studies, but it still lacks substantial evidence [43, 44]. Our results indicate a possible correlation between immunohistochemical uPAR levels in the dura mater and the risk of recurrent CSDH. However, we experienced an immunohistochemical uPAR examination of the dura mater to be clinically less accessible, leaving this potential risk factor unsuitable for clinical use. Furthermore, we highlight that this result is peculiar, as uPAR levels were lower in the dura mater than in the hematoma membrane. Overall, this result is based on five samples and requires reexamination in a larger cohort.
Clinical Implication
The significantly higher level of uPAR in the outer membrane found in this study, as well as the raised levels of uPAR in the hematoma fluid compared to peripheral blood, indicates that inflammation in CSDH is primarily a focal reaction at the site of the hematoma. This would explain the need for a relatively high dose of systemic anti-inflammatory medicine to reduce CSDH recurrence [22]. Systemic anti-inflammatory treatment for all CSDH patients is deemed impractical due to severe systemic side effects [22, 45]. However, as CSDH is presumably a disease primarily involving the subdural fluid and surrounding hematoma membrane, focal intracavity treatment to block angiogenetic, inflammatory, or fibrinolytic processes in CSDH development would likely reduce systemic side effects while inducing a strong targeted effect.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, multiple factors may cause an inflammatory response, including hypertension, chronic alcohol abuse, hepatic diseases, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, and several others [41, 42, 46,47,48,49,50]. These factors may theoretically elevate uPAR levels. We registered Charlson’s comorbidity index and found no difference between patients with and without recurrent CSDH; however, the inflammatory influence of other conditions may be a confounder.
Second, the immunohistochemical samples were generally limited, and especially from patients with recurrent CSDH, the number was only 5. In our department, if the recurrent CSDH is optimally localized with the punctum maximum of the hematoma beneath the previous burr hole from the primary CSDH operation, the burr hole is reused in the recurrent CSDH operation. This limits the possibility of collecting dura mater and hematoma membrane biopsies from patients with recurrent CSDH, which may reduce the implacability of these results. Therefore, the results should be regarded as exploratory only.
Finally, we found a statistical difference in the baseline characteristics of our study population between patients with and without recurrence. Bilateral CSDH is a known risk factor for recurrent CSDH, but to our knowledge, male sex is a risk factor for CSDH in the background population but not a risk factor for recurrent CSDH. As such, our skewed distribution may be a variability in outcome [41, 51]. Although the analysis of the prediction of CSDH recurrence may not be applicable to female CSDH patients, we would not expect a difference between male and female CSDH patients.
Conclusion
We identified uPAR in the subdural fluid, hematoma membrane, dura mater, and systemic blood from patients with CSDH. The expression of uPAR is significantly higher in the subdural fluid and hematoma membrane compared to systemic blood and dura mater, indicating that the inflammatory mechanisms of CSDH are localized to the subdural fluid collection and surrounding hematoma membrane. This may have clinical implications for possible intracavity CSDH treatment.
Data Availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Edlmann, E., S. Giorgi-Coll, P.C. Whitfield, K.L.H. Carpenter, and P.J. Hutchinson. 2017. Pathophysiology of chronic subdural haematoma: Inflammation, angiogenesis and implications for pharmacotherapy. Journal of Neuroinflammation 14 (1): 108.
Ploug, M., E. Rønne, N. Behrendt, A. L. Jensen, F. Blasi, and K. Danø. 1991. Cellular receptor for urokinase plasminogen activator. Carboxyl-terminal processing and membrane anchoring by glycosyl-phosphatidylinositol. Journal of Biological Chemistry 266(3):1926–1933.
Smith, H.W., and C.J. Marshall. 2010. Regulation of cell signalling by uPAR. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 11 (1): 23–36.
Mondino, A., and F. Blasi. 2004. uPA and uPAR in fibrinolysis, immunity and pathology. Trends in Immunology 25 (8): 450–455.
Dinesh, P., and M. Rasool. 2018. uPA/uPAR signaling in rheumatoid arthritis: Shedding light on its mechanism of action. Pharmacological Research 134: 31–39.
Boonstra, M.C., H.W. Verspaget, S. Ganesh, F.J. Kubben, A.L. Vahrmeijer, C.J. van de Velde, et al. 2011. Clinical applications of the urokinase receptor (uPAR) for cancer patients. Current Pharmaceutical Design 17 (19): 1890–1910.
Baart, V.M., R.D. Houvast, L.F. de Geus-Oei, P.H.A. Quax, P.J.K. Kuppen, A.L. Vahrmeijer, et al. 2020. Molecular imaging of the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor: Opportunities beyond cancer. EJNMMI Research 10 (1): 87.
Zhang, J., S. Sud, K. Mizutani, M.R. Gyetko, and K.J. Pienta. 2011. Activation of urokinase plasminogen activator and its receptor axis is essential for macrophage infiltration in a prostate cancer mouse model. Neoplasia 13 (1): 23–30.
Raghu, H., A.K. Nalla, C.S. Gondi, M. Gujrati, D.H. Dinh, and J.S. Rao. 2012. uPA and uPAR shRNA inhibit angiogenesis via enhanced secretion of SVEGFR1 independent of GM-CSF but dependent on TIMP-1 in endothelial and glioblastoma cells. Molecular Oncology 6 (1): 33–47.
Hohenstein, A., R. Erber, L. Schilling, and R. Weigel. 2005. Increased mRNA expression of VEGF within the hematoma and imbalance of angiopoietin-1 and -2 mRNA within the neomembranes of chronic subdural hematoma. Journal of Neurotrauma 22 (5): 518–528.
Charlson, M.E., D. Carrozzino, J. Guidi, and C. Patierno. 2022. Charlson comorbidity index: A critical review of clinimetric properties. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 91 (1): 8–35.
Zhou, Y., Z. Xu, and Z. Liu. 2023. Role of IL-33-ST2 pathway in regulating inflammation: Current evidence and future perspectives. Journal of Translational Medicine 21 (1): 902.
Crotty, K., P. Anton, L.G. Coleman, N.L. Morris, S.A. Lewis, D.R. Samuelson, et al. 2023. A critical review of recent knowledge of alcohol’s effects on the immunological response in different tissues. Alcohol Clin Exp Res (Hoboken). 47 (1): 36–44.
Franco, C., E. Sciatti, G. Favero, F. Bonomini, E. Vizzardi, R. Rezzani. 2022. Essential Hypertension and Oxidative Stress: Novel Future Perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23 (22).
Herrera-Martínez, A.D., V. Herrero-Aguayo, J.M. Pérez-Gómez, M.D. Gahete, and R.M. Luque. 2022. Inflammasomes: Cause or consequence of obesity-associated comorbidities in humans. Obesity (Silver Spring) 30 (12): 2351–2362.
Aasarey, R., K. Yadav, B.K. Kashyap, S. Prabha, P. Kumar, A. Kumar, et al. 2023. Role of immunological cells in hepatocellular carcinoma disease and associated pathways. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 6 (12): 1801–1816.
Sucu, H.K., M. Gokmen, and F. Gelal. 2005. The value of XYZ/2 technique compared with computer-assisted volumetric analysis to estimate the volume of chronic subdural hematoma. Stroke 36 (5): 998–1000.
Jensen, T.S.R., N. Andersen-Ranberg, F.R. Poulsen, B. Bergholt, T. Hundsholt, and K. Fugleholm. 2020. The Danish Chronic Subdural Hematoma Study-comparison of hematoma age to the radiological appearance at time of diagnosis. Acta Neurochirurgica. Supplementum 162 (9): 2007–2013.
Bankhead, P., M.B. Loughrey, J.A. Fernández, Y. Dombrowski, D.G. McArt, P.D. Dunne, et al. 2017. QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Science and Reports 7 (1): 16878.
Goulding, H., S. Pinder, P. Cannon, D. Pearson, R. Nicholson, D. Snead, et al. 1995. A new immunohistochemical antibody for the assessment of estrogen receptor status on routine formalin-fixed tissue samples. Human Pathology 26 (3): 291–294.
Swets, J.A. 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240 (4857): 1285–1293.
Hutchinson, P.J., E. Edlmann, D. Bulters, A. Zolnourian, P. Holton, N. Suttner, et al. 2020. Trial of dexamethasone for chronic subdural hematoma. New England Journal of Medicine 383 (27): 2616–2627.
Nathoo, N., A. Chahlavi, G.H. Barnett, and S.A. Toms. 2005. Pathobiology of brain metastases. Journal of Clinical Pathology 58 (3): 237–242.
Bindal, A.K., M. Hammoud, W.M. Shi, S.Z. Wu, R. Sawaya, and J.S. Rao. 1994. Prognostic significance of proteolytic enzymes in human brain tumors. Journal of Neuro-oncology 22 (2): 101–110.
Risør, L.M., T. Binderup, M. Fosbøl, K.F. Andersen, A. Loft, J. Friborg, et al. 2022. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) assessed by liquid biopsies and PET/CT for prognostication in head and neck cancer patients. Science and Reports 12 (1): 19126.
Lawaetz, M., T. Binderup, A. Christensen, K. Juhl, G. Lelkaitis, E. Lykke. et al. 2023. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) expression and [(64)Cu]Cu-DOTA-AE105 uPAR-PET/CT in patient-derived xenograft models of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Molecular Imaging Biology
Gabay, C., and I. Kushner. 1999. Acute-phase proteins and other systemic responses to inflammation. New England Journal of Medicine 340 (6): 448–454.
Beschorner, R., H.J. Schluesener, T.D. Nguyen, V. Magdolen, T. Luther, I. Pedal, et al. 2000. Lesion-associated accumulation of uPAR/CD87- expressing infiltrating granulocytes, activated microglial cells/macrophages and upregulation by endothelial cells following TBI and FCI in humans. Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology 26 (6): 522–527.
Cinque, P., M. Nebuloni, M.L. Santovito, R.W. Price, M. Gisslen, L. Hagberg, et al. 2004. The urokinase receptor is overexpressed in the AIDS dementia complex and other neurological manifestations. Annals of Neurology 55 (5): 687–694.
Deininger, M.H., K. Trautmann, V. Magdolen, T. Luther, H.J. Schluesener, and R. Meyermann. 2002. Cortical neurons of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients express the urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor. Neuroscience Letters 324 (1): 80–82.
Fauser, S., M.H. Deininger, P.G. Kremsner, V. Magdolen, T. Luther, R. Meyermann, et al. 2000. Lesion associated expression of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR, CD87) in human cerebral malaria. Journal of Neuroimmunology 111 (1–2): 234–240.
Gveric, D., R. Hanemaaijer, J. Newcombe, N.A. van Lent, C.F. Sier, and M.L. Cuzner. 2001. Plasminogen activators in multiple sclerosis lesions: Implications for the inflammatory response and axonal damage. Brain 124 (Pt 10): 1978–1988.
Sidenius, N., M. Nebuloni, S. Sala, P. Zerbi, R.W. Price, M. Gisslen, et al. 2004. Expression of the urokinase plasminogen activator and its receptor in HIV-1-associated central nervous system disease. Journal of Neuroimmunology 157 (1–2): 133–139.
Walker, D.G., L.F. Lue, and T.G. Beach. 2002. Increased expression of the urokinase plasminogen-activator receptor in amyloid beta peptide-treated human brain microglia and in AD brains. Brain Research 926 (1–2): 69–79.
Breuss, J.M., and P. Uhrin. 2012. VEGF-initiated angiogenesis and the uPA/uPAR system. Cell Adhesion & Migration 6 (6): 535–615.
Rao, J.S., M. Gujrati, C. Chetty. 2013. Tumor-associated soluble uPAR-directed endothelial cell motility and tumor angiogenesis. Oncogenesis 2 (6): e53
Høyer-Hansen, G., M. Ploug, N. Behrendt, E. Rønne, and K. Danø. 1997. Cell-surface acceleration of urokinase-catalyzed receptor cleavage. European Journal of Biochemistry 243 (1–2): 21–26.
Sidenius, N., A. Andolfo, R. Fesce, and F. Blasi. 2002. Urokinase regulates vitronectin binding by controlling urokinase receptor oligomerization. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277 (31): 27982–27990.
Herz, J., and D.K. Strickland. 2001. LRP: A multifunctional scavenger and signaling receptor. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 108 (6): 779–784.
Sappino, A.P., R. Madani, J. Huarte, D. Belin, J.Z. Kiss, A. Wohlwend, et al. 1993. Extracellular proteolysis in the adult murine brain. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 92 (2): 679–685.
Tseng, J.H., M.Y. Tseng, A.J. Liu, W.H. Lin, H.Y. Hu, and S.H. Hsiao. 2014. Risk factors for chronic subdural hematoma after a minor head injury in the elderly: A population-based study. BioMed Research International 2014: 218646.
Jensen, T.S.R., N. Andersen-Ranberg, F.R. Poulsen, B. Bergholt, T. Hundsholt, and K. Fugleholm. 2022. The Danish chronic subdural hematoma study-risk factors for second recurrence. World Neurosurg. 168: e178–e186.
Jensen, T.S.R., T. Binderup, M.H. Olsen, A. Kjaer, K. Fugleholm. 2023. Subdural levels of interleukin 1-receptor antagonist are elevated in patients with recurrent chronic subdural hematomas. Inflammation
de Oliveira, A.J.M., D.J.F. Solla, K.F. de Oliveira, B.S. Amaral, A.F. Andrade, A.G. Kolias, et al. 2022. Postoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio variation is associated with chronic subdural hematoma recurrence. Neurological Sciences 43 (1): 427–434.
Saul, H., D. Gursul, S. Cassidy, P. Hutchinson, and A. Kolias. 2022. Dexamethasone should not be given to people with a chronic subdural haematoma. BMJ 377: o1302.
Mori, K., and M. Maeda. 2001. Surgical treatment of chronic subdural hematoma in 500 consecutive cases: Clinical characteristics, surgical outcome, complications, and recurrence rate. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica (Tokyo) 41 (8): 371–381.
Tseng, J.-H., M.-Y. Tseng, A.-J. Liu, W.-H. Lin, H.-Y. Hu, and S.-H. Hsiao. 2014. Risk factors for chronic subdural hematoma after a minor head injury in the elderly: A population-based study. BioMed Research International. 2014: 218646.
Lee, J.J., Y. Won, T. Yang, S. Kim, C.S. Choi, and J. Yang. 2015. Risk factors of chronic subdural hematoma progression after conservative management of cases with initially acute subdural hematoma. Korean J Neurotrauma. 11 (2): 52–57.
Jack, A., C. O’Kelly, C. McDougall, and J.M. Findlay. 2015. Predicting recurrence after chronic subdural haematoma drainage. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 42 (1): 34–39.
Shen, J., L. Yuan, R. Ge, Q. Wang, W. Zhou, X.C. Jiang, et al. 2019. Clinical and radiological factors predicting recurrence of chronic subdural hematoma: A retrospective cohort study. Injury 50 (10): 1634–1640.
Andersen-Ranberg, N.C., F.R. Poulsen, B. Bergholt, T. Hundsholt, and K. Fugleholm. 2017. Bilateral chronic subdural hematoma: Unilateral or bilateral drainage? Journal of Neurosurgery 126 (6): 1905–1911.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Copenhagen University This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement no. 670261 (ERC Advanced Grant), the Lundbeck Foundation, the Becket Foundation, Grosserer L. F. Foghts Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Innovation Fund Denmark, Arvid Nilsson Foundation, the Neye Foundation, the Research Foundation of Rigshospitalet, the Danish National Research Foundation (Grant 126), the Research Council of the Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Health Authority, and the John and Birthe Meyer Foundation and Research Council for Independent Research. Andreas Kjaer is a Lundbeck Foundation Professor.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Thorbjørn Søren Rønn Jensen: Original draft preparation, conceptualization, sample collection, analysis, validation, data curation. Markus Harboe Olsen: Statistical analysis, writing- reviewing and editing. Giedrius Lelkaitis: immunohistochemal analyses, writing- reviewing and editing. Andreas Kjaer: Supervision, writing- reviewing and editing. Tina Binderup: Conceptualization, analysis, validation, data curation, writing- reviewing and editing. Kåre Fugleholm: Conceptualization, supervision, methodology, writing- reviewing and editing, data curation. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
The study was approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (Journal no. H-20051073).
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
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/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jensen, T.S.R., Olsen, M.H., Lelkaitis, G. et al. Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor: An Important Focal Player in Chronic Subdural Hematoma?. Inflammation 47, 1015–1027 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10753-023-01957-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10753-023-01957-5