| Literature DB >> 26439988 |
Benjamin Weixler1, Eleonora Cremonesi2, Roberto Sorge3, Manuele Giuseppe Muraro2, Tarik Delko1, Christian A Nebiker1, Silvio Däster1, Valeria Governa2, Francesca Amicarella2, Savas D Soysal1,2, Christoph Kettelhack1, Urs W von Holzen1,4, Serenella Eppenberger-Castori5, Giulio C Spagnoli2, Daniel Oertli1, Giandomenica Iezzi2, Luigi Terracciano5, Luigi Tornillo5, Giuseppe Sconocchia6, Raoul A Droeser1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: OX40 is a TNF receptor family member expressed by activated T cells. Its triggering by OX40 ligand promotes lymphocyte survival and memory generation. Anti-OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are currently being tested in cancer immunotherapy. We explored the prognostic significance of tumor infiltration by OX40+ cells in a large colorectal cancer (CRC) collective.Entities:
Keywords: CD8; OX40; colorectal cancer; microenvironment; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26439988 PMCID: PMC4741950 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.5940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Gene expression profiles in CRC
Total cellular RNA was extracted from freshly excised CRC tissues (n = 48) and corresponding healthy mucosa sampled at distance from the tumor and reverse transcribed. Specific gene expression was analyzed by qRT-PCR, using, as reference, GAPDH house-keeping gene expression.
Clinical-pathological characteristics of the overall CRC patient cohort and their association with levels of OX40+ infiltrate
| Total | OX40 low | OX40 high | OX40 low vs high | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | N or mean | (% or range) | N or mean | (% or range) | N or mean | (% or range) | |
| Age, years (median, mean) | 71, 69.9 | (36-96) | 72, 70.5 | (36-96) | 70, 68.6 | (40-90) | 0.02 |
| Tumor size in mm (median, mean) | 50, 51.7 | (5-170) | 45, 51.5 | (5-170) | 50, 50.2 | (7-160) | 0.827 |
| Sex | 0.539 | ||||||
| Female (%) | 359 | (54.6) | 247 | (56.1) | 112 | (51.6) | |
| Male (%) | 298 | (45.4) | 193 | (43.9) | 105 | (48.4) | |
| Anatomic site of the tumor | 0.037 | ||||||
| Left-sided (%) | 425 | (64.7) | 272 | (61.8) | 153 | (70.5) | |
| Right-sided (%) | 228 | (34.7) | 165 | (37.5) | 63 | (29.0) | |
| T stage | |||||||
| T1 (%) | 29 | (4.4) | 11 | (2.5) | 18 | (8.3) | <0.0001 |
| T2 (%) | 103 | (15.7) | 62 | (14.1) | 41 | (18.9) | |
| T3 (%) | 416 | (63.3) | 284 | (64.5) | 132 | (60.8) | |
| T4 (%) | 91 | (13.8) | 74 | (16.8) | 17 | (7.8) | |
| N stage | |||||||
| N0 (%) | 333 | (50.7) | 203 | (46.1) | 130 | (59.9) | 0.002 |
| N1 (%) | 174 | (26.5) | 127 | (28.9) | 47 | (21.7) | |
| N2 (%) | 128 | (19.5) | 97 | (22.0) | 31 | (14.3) | |
| Tumor grade | 0.739 | ||||||
| G1 (%) | 15 | (2.2) | 9 | (2.0) | 6 | (2.8) | |
| G2 (%) | 562 | (85.5) | 377 | (85.7) | 185 | (85.2) | |
| G3 (%) | 60 | (9.1) | 42 | (9.6) | 18 | (8.3) | |
| UICC | |||||||
| Stage IA (%) T1N0 | 21 | (3.2) | 9 | (2.0) | 12 | (5.5) | 0.0003 |
| Stage IB (%) T2N0 | 73 | (11.1) | 44 | (10.0) | 29 | (13.4) | |
| Stage IIA (%) T3N0 | 202 | (30.7) | 123 | (30.0) | 79 | (36.4) | |
| Stage IIB-C (%) T4N0 | 30 | (4.6) | 25 | (5.7) | 5 | (2.3) | |
| Stage III (%) N+ | 296 | (45.1) | 220 | (50.0) | 76 | (35.0) | |
| Tumor border configuration | |||||||
| Infiltrative (%) | 418 | (63.6) | 285 | (64.8) | 133 | (61.3) | 0.568 |
| Pushing (%) | 218 | (33.2) | 143 | (32.5) | 75 | (34.6) | |
| Vascular invasion | |||||||
| No (%) | 462 | (70.3) | 300 | (68.2) | 162 | (74.7) | 0.044 |
| Yes (%) | 175 | (26.6) | 129 | (29.3) | 46 | (21.2) | |
| Microsatellite Stability | |||||||
| Proficient (%) | 552 | (84.0) | 362 | (82.3) | 190 | (87.6) | 0.104 |
| Deficient (%) | 105 | (16.0) | 78 | (17.7) | 27 | (12.4) | |
| Rectal cancers (%) | 219 | (33.3) | 131 | (29.8) | 88 | (40.6) | 0.013 |
| Rectosigmoid cancers (%) | 41 | (6.2) | 33 | (7.5) | 8 | (3.7) | |
| Median overall survival time (months) | 92 | 0-152 | 77 | 0-152 | 101 | 0-150 | <0.0001 |
| 5-year overall survival % (95%CI) | 55.4 | 51.6–59.6 | 49.9 | 45.2–55.1 | 66.1 | 59.9–72.9 | 0.0003 |
Percentages may not add to 100% due to missing values of defined variables.
Age and tumor size were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney test. Gender, anatomical site, T stage, N stage, grade, vascular invasion, and tumor border configuration were analyzed using the χ2 or Fisher exact test depending on the number of observations. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparatively analyzed with the log-rank test.
Figure 2Prognostic significance of OX40 expression by CRC infiltrating cells
A. CRC TMA was stained with OX40 specific reagents, as detailed in “materials and methods”. Panel A. shows representative punches with different extents of OX40+ cell infiltration (magnification 20X). Kaplan-Meier plots depicting the prognostic significance in randomly generated training and validation cohorts (panel B.). Number of events (= deaths) and total number of cases in each cohort are reported.
Figure 3Combined Kaplan- Meier analysis of OX40+ and CD8+ infiltration results in enhanced prognostic significance in CRC
OX40+ in the overall collective (panel A.); OX40+ combined with FOXP3+ (panel B.); OX40+ combined with CD8+ cell infiltration (panel C.); comparative evaluation with conventional TNM staging (panel D.); OX40+/CD8+ in low stage CRC(panel E.) and in high grade (panel F.).
Uni and Multivariate Hazard Cox regression survival analysis
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| OX40 (continuous) | 0.99 | 0.99-0.99 | <0.0001 | n.i. | ||
| CD8 (continuous) | 0.99 | 0.98-0.99 | 0.007 | n.i. | ||
| FoxP3 (continuous) | 0.88 | 0.81-0.94 | 0.049 | n.i. | ||
| OX40 high/low | 0.63 | 0.51-0.75 | 0.0001 | n.i. | ||
| CD8 high/low | 0.54 | 0.37-0.70 | 0.0002 | n.i. | ||
| OX40highCD8high | 0.93 | 0.92-0.95 | <0.0001 | 0.95 | 0.93-0.97 | 0.006 |
| FoxP3 high/low | 0.77 | 0.66-0.88 | 0.02 | 0.84 | 0.72-096 | 0.15 |
| Age | 1.02 | 1.01-1.03 | 0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.02-1.04 | <0.00001 |
| Gender (men vs women) | 0.67 | 0.67-0.67 | 0.0002 | 0.65 | 0.53-0.77 | 0.0003 |
| pT stage | 2.25 | 2.16-2.34 | <0.000001 | 1.94 | 1.82-2.05 | <0.00001 |
| Tumor grade | 1.51 | 1.36–1.67 | 0.008 | 1.22 | 1.03-1.41 | 0.28 |
| pN stage | 2.28 | 2.21-2.35 | <0.000001 | 1.88 | 1.80-1.97 | <0.00001 |
| Vascular invasion | 2.46 | 2.35-2.58 | <0.000001 | 1.48 | 1.35-1.62 | 0.004 |
| Tumor border configuration | 2.03 | 1.90-2.16 | <0.000001 | 1.39 | 1.24-1.54 | 0.029 |
| Microsatellite stability (deficient vs. proficient) | 1.55 | 1.38-1.72 | 0.01 | 1.82 | 1.64-2.01 | 0.001 |
Uni- and multivariate Cox-regression analyses showing Hazard Ratios and P-values.
The multivariate model included 556 patients, due to missing values related to CD8+ and FOXP3+ density, age, sex, tumor size, tumor grade, vascular invasion, tumor border configuration and microsatellite stability.
n.i.: not included in the final multivariate model.