| Literature DB >> 24276989 |
Qi Yue1, Xin Zhang, Hong-Xing Ye, Yin Wang, Zun-Guo Du, Yu Yao, Ying Mao.
Abstract
Forkhead box protein 3 (Foxp3) is known as a specific marker for regulatory T cells which contribute to immunosuppression in tumor microenvironment. However, existing studies regarding clinical significance of Foxp3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in glioblastoma (GBM) remained discrepant. In this study, we aimed to explore whether this subtype of TILs correlated with prognosis in patients with GBM. Foxp3+ TILs as well as CD8+ ones were detected by immunohistochemistry on paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 62 patients. Staining for p53, MGMT and Ki-67 were also performed. The correlation of TIL subtypes with clinicopathologic features were analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS were determined through univariate and multivariate analysis. Significant correlation was found between Foxp3 and CD8 expression (P = 0.003), but not between TIL subtypes and clinicopathologic characteristics. Patients with higher density of Foxp3+ TILs showed relatively shorter PFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P = 0.003) whereas patients with higher density of CD8+ TILs obtained no significant differences in survival. Survival analysis based on molecular classifications further clarified these predictive values. Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that frequency of Foxp3+ TILs was probably associated with both PFS (P = 0.002) and OS (P = 0.003). In conclusion, the results suggest that Foxp3 positive infiltrates could provide an independent predictive factor in GBM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24276989 PMCID: PMC3890045 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1314-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurooncol ISSN: 0167-594X Impact factor: 4.130
Fig. 1Representative micrographs of Foxp3 and CD8 expression in GBM. Low (a), high (b) numbers of Foxp3+ cells with nuclear stain and low (c), high (d) numbers of CD8+ cells with membrane stain were shown respectively. Scale bars 50 μm
Correlation of clinicopathologic characteristics with TIL parameters
| Number | Foxp3+ | CD8+ | Foxp3+/CD8+ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean |
| Mean |
| Mean |
| ||
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 43 | 7.72 | 0.448 | 47.39 | 0.432 | 0.304 | 0.086 |
| Female | 19 | 10.77 | 54.67 | 0.638 | |||
| Age (years) | |||||||
| ≥55 | 29 | 10.82 | 0.681 | 51.21 | 0.893 | 0.593 | 0.783 |
| <55 | 33 | 6.76 | 48.23 | 0.242 | |||
| Location | |||||||
| Frontal | 23 | 10.53 | 0.658 | 58.50 | 0.626 | 0.222 | 0.429 |
| Parietal | 4 | 2.81 | 50.31 | 0.067 | |||
| Temporal | 15 | 8.83 | 39.33 | 0.936 | |||
| Other site | 7 | 5.59 | 50.95 | 0.195 | |||
| Combined | 13 | 8.59 | 44.87 | 0.340 | |||
| Diameter (cm) | |||||||
| ≥4 | 31 | 7.72 | 0.740 | 51.12 | 0.725 | 0.205 | 0.745 |
| <4 | 31 | 9.60 | 48.13 | 0.609 | |||
| Resection | |||||||
| GTR | 50 | 8.27 | 0.655 | 54.58 | 0.063 | 0.241 | 0.201 |
| Non-GTR | 12 | 10.28 | 28.96 | 1.098 | |||
| p53 | |||||||
| Positive | 29 | 9.99 | 0.420 | 56.05 | 0.182 | 0.238 | 0.640 |
| Negative | 33 | 7.49 | 43.98 | 0.555 | |||
| MGMT | |||||||
| Positive | 22 | 8.54 | 0.525 | 69.53 | 0.009 | 0.215 | 0.971 |
| Negative | 40 | 8.72 | 38.68 | 0.512 | |||
| Ki-67 | |||||||
| Positive | 23 | 4.76 | 0.058 | 38.06 | 0.374 | 0.204 | 0.106 |
| Negative | 39 | 10.95 | 56.44 | 0.526 | |||
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier survival curves and log-rank tests for Foxp3 and CD8 in GBM patients. a Higher level of Foxp3+ TIL density correlated significantly with shorter PFS. b Higher level of Foxp3+ TIL density correlated significantly with shorter OS. c PFS was not significantly different for patients with high or low level of CD8+ TIL density. d OS was not significantly different for patients with high or low level of CD8+ TIL density
Prognostic significance of TIL parameters in molecular subtypes
| Foxp3 | CD8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFS | OS | PFS | OS | |
| p53 | ||||
| Positive | 0.065 | 0.030 | 0.330 | 0.196 |
| Negative | 0.004 | 0.058 | 0.745 | 0.486 |
| MGMT | ||||
| Positive | 0.013 | 0.028 | 0.914 | 0.443 |
| Negative | 0.014 | 0.023 | 0.579 | 0.966 |
| Ki-67 | ||||
| Positive | 0.649 | 0.570 | 0.597 | 0.414 |
| Negative | 0.000 | 0.021 | 0.402 | 0.254 |
Prognostic factors for PFS and OS in univariate and multivariate analysis
| PFS | OS | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate (model A) | Multivariate (model B) | Univariate | Multivariate (model A) | Multivariate (model B) | |||||||
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| HR (95 % CI) |
| |
| Sex | 1.22 (0.70–2.11) | 0.483 | 1.43 (0.82–2.48) | 0.204 | ||||||||
| Age | 0.76 (0.45–1.27) | 0.295 | 0.73 (0.43–1.26) | 0.261 | 0.68 (0.40–1.14) | 0.146 | 0.86 (0.49–1.51) | 0.598 | ||||
| Location | 1.10 (0.92–1.31) | 0.303 | 1.09 (0.91–1.29) | 0.350 | ||||||||
| Diameter | 1.37 (0.81–2.31) | 0.240 | 1.70 (0.96–3.04) | 0.071 | 1.61 (0.92–2.83) | 0.098 | 1.33 (0.78–2.26) | 0.288 | ||||
| Resection | 1.96 (1.01–3.81) | 0.048 | 2.84 (1.32–6.13) | 0.008 | 2.54 (1.23–5.24) | 0.012 | 2.32 (1.18–4.56) | 0.015 | 3.09 (1.42–6.74) | 0.005 | 2.86 (1.40–5.84) | 0.004 |
| p53 | 0.92 (0.55–1.55) | 0.768 | 0.98 (0.58–1.64) | 0.934 | ||||||||
| MGMT | 1.26 (0.73–2.16) | 0.412 | 1.32 (0.77–2.28) | 0.313 | ||||||||
| Ki-67 | 0.79 (0.46–1.34) | 0.376 | 0.62 (0.36–1.06) | 0.078 | 0.59 (0.32–1.09) | 0.090 | 0.52 (0.30–0.91) | 0.021 | ||||
| Foxp3 | 0.41 (0.23–0.73) | 0.002 | 0.33 (0.15–0.77) | 0.010 | 0.41 (0.23–0.72) | 0.002 | 0.45 (0.25–0.79) | 0.006 | 0.35 (0.15–0.81) | 0.015 | 0.42 (0.24–0.75) | 0.003 |
| CD8 | 1.16 (0.69–1.95) | 0.570 | 1.15 (0.69–1.93) | 0.597 | ||||||||
| Foxp3+/CD8+ | 0.58 (0.35–0.99) | 0.044 | 1.32 (0.59–2.98) | 0.498 | 0.66 (0.39–1.11) | 0.116 | 1.35 (0.56–3.27) | 0.501 | ||||