| Literature DB >> 23935846 |
Thomas John1, Maud H W Starmans, Yao-Tseng Chen, Prudence A Russell, Stephen A Barnett, Shane C White, Paul L Mitchell, Marzena Walkiewicz, Arun Azad, Philippe Lambin, Ming-Sound Tsao, Siddhartha Deb, Nasser Altorki, Gavin Wright, Simon Knight, Paul C Boutros, Jonathan S Cebon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-Testis Antigens (CTAs) are immunogenic proteins that are poor prognostic markers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated expression of CTAs in NSCLC and their association with response to chemotherapy, genetic mutations and survival.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23935846 PMCID: PMC3720740 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinicopathological features associated with CTA expression in two cohorts of patients.
| Pre-operative cohort (n = 94) | Post-operative cohort (n = 105) | ||
| Age median (range) | 63 (37–82) | Age median (range) | 66 (29–86) |
| Sex | Sex | ||
| Male | 50 | Male | 58 |
| Female | 44 | Female | 47 |
| Stage | Stage | ||
| IIB | 3 | IIIA | 99 |
| IIIA | 88 | IIIB | 6 |
| IIIB | 3 | ||
| Histology | Histology | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 60 | Adenocarcinoma | 59 |
| Squamous | 22 | Squamous | 30 |
| Other | 11 | Other | 16 |
| NA | 1 | ||
| Response | Adjuvant chemo | ||
| Complete Response (CR) | 3 | No | 49 |
| Partial Response (PR) | 37 | Yes | 47 |
| Stable Disease (SD) | 42 | NA | 9 |
| Progressive Disease (PD) | 11 | ||
| NA | 1 | ||
| NY-ESO-1 | NY-ESO-1 | ||
| − | 70 | − | 79 |
| + | 24 | + | 26 |
| MAGE-A | MAGE-A | ||
| − | 67 | − | 53 |
| + | 27 | + | 52 |
| MAGE-C1 | MAGE-C1 | ||
| − | 81 | − | 73 |
| + | 13 | + | 32 |
| Mutation status (EGFR/KRAS/TP53) | Mutation status (EGFR/KRAS/TP53) | ||
| − | 62 | − | 50 |
| + | 25 | + | 50 |
| NA | 7 | NA | 5 |
Figure 1CTA expression by IHC in an individual patient tumor sample.
A: Testis (positive control), B: NY-ESO-1, C: MAGE-A, D: MAGE-C1, E: Heat map detailing overlap in expression of CTAs and other clinicopathological features in the neoadjuvant cohort.
Figure 2Expression of N-ESO-1 and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A).
CR = Complete Response, PR = Partial Response, SD = Stable Disease, PD = Progressive Disease, NA = Not Assessable. Forest plot detailing factors associated with survival in patients who were treated in the post-operative cohort. Sq = Squamous Cell, ADC = Adenocarcinoma, ACT = Adjuvant Chemotherapy (B).
Figure 3Survival curves demonstrating NY-ESO-1 to be a poor prognostic factor (A) and a predictive marker for benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (B).
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with survival in patients treated with surgery initially.
| HR | 95% CI | P (Wald test) | |
| Stage (IIIB vs. IIIA) | 1.245 | 0.4697–3.299 | 0.660 |
| Histology (SQ vs. ADC) | 1.542 | 0.8445–2.816 | 0.159 |
| Histology (other vs. ADC) | 1.331 | 0.5561–3.185 | 0.521 |
| ACT | 0.7427 | 0.3977–1.387 | 0.351 |
| NY-ESO-1 | 2.609 | 1.278–5.329 | 0.008 |
| NY-ESO-1:ACT | 0.2674 | 0.07301–0.9795 | 0.046 |
HR = hazard ratio, ACT = adjuvant chemotherapy, SQ = squamous cell, ADC = adenocarcinoma histology.
Figure 4Association of MAGE-A1, MAGE-A4 and MAGE-C1 expression and survival in the BR.10 study.