| Literature DB >> 27564117 |
Ying Xiong1, Li Liu1, Yu Xia1, Jiajun Wang1, Wei Xi1, Qi Bai1, Yang Qu1, Qilai Long1, Jiejie Xu2, Jianming Guo1.
Abstract
We enrolled a total of 277 patients who received nephrectomy due to clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in Zhongshan Hospital from Jan 2005 to Jun 2007. Immunohistochemistry was performed to evaluate the impact of CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration on the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with ccRCC. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that high CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration in tumor tissue indicated poorer OS and RFS (OS, p < 0.001; RFS, p = 0.002). High CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration is also an independent risk factor for OS and RFS in multivariate analyses (OS, p = 0.004; RFS, p = 0.009). CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration could also stratify ccRCC patients' survival with University of California Integrated Staging System (UISS) stratum in the mediate-risk and high-risk groups. We constructed two nomograms incorporating parameters derived from multivariate analyses to predict patients' OS and RFS (OS, c-index 0.813; RFS, c-index 0.716). In conclusion, high CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration in ccRCC is an independent adverse prognostic factor for patients, and established nomograms based on this information could help predict ccRCC patients' OS and RFS.Entities:
Keywords: c-type lectin-like receptor 2; clear cell renal cell carcinoma; overall survival; prognostic factor; recurrence-free survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27564117 PMCID: PMC5325393 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) tissues
Representative CLEC-2 immunohistochemical (IHC) images of ccRCC tumor tissues with low CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration (Patient No. 237, 11 CLEC-2 positive cells in core 1) (A) and high CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration (Patient No. 046, 206 CLEC-2 positive cells in core 2) (B). Arrows indicate CLEC-2 positive cells.
Figure 2Overall survival (OS) and Recurrence-free survival (RFS) analyses of patients with ccRCC based on CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration
Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS in All Patients group (n = 277) (A); and in UISS Low-Risk group (n = 116) (B) in UISS Mediate-Risk group (n = 67) (C) and in UISS High-Risk group (n = 74) (D); Kaplan-Meier analysis of RFS in All Patients group (n = 254) (E); in UISS Low-Risk group (n = 115) (F) in UISS Mediate-Risk group (n = 118) (G) and in UISS High-Risk group (n = 21) (H). P value was calculated by log-rank test.
Proportional hazard model for overall survival and recurrence free survival prediction
| Variables | OS ( | RFS( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | |||
| Pathological T stage | 0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| pT1 | Reference | Reference | ||
| pT2 | 2.468 (1.217–5.004) | 0.012 | 2.144 (0.947–4.855) | 0.068 |
| pT3 | 2.968 (1.732–5.088) | < 0.001 | 3.181 (1.806–5.602) | < 0.001 |
| pT4 | 4.116 (1.080–15.681) | 0.038 | 11.160 (3.285–37.913) | < 0.001 |
| Distant metastasis | ||||
| Yes | 2.804 (1.421–5.533) | 0.003 | ||
| Fuhrman grade | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| 1 | Reference | Reference | ||
| 2 | 1.641 (0.585–4.600) | 0.346 | 1.297(0.504–3.339) | 0.589 |
| 3 | 3.711 (1.231–11.189) | 0.020 | 3.868 (1.376–10.871) | 0.010 |
| 4 | 15.148 (3.117–73.613) | 0.001 | 13.530 (2.909–62.929) | 0.001 |
| Necrosis | ||||
| Present | 1.871 (1.023–3.425) | 0.042 | 1.853(1.010–3.486) | 0.046 |
| ECOG PS | 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| 0 | Reference | Reference | ||
| 1 | 2.392 (1.451–3.970) | 0.001 | 2.180 (1.231–3.861) | 0.008 |
| 2 | 2.914 (1.079–7.870) | 0.035 | 6.776 (2.547–18.028) | < 0.001 |
| 3 | 4.200 (1.212–14.550) | 0.024 | 5.792 (1.848–18.148) | 0.003 |
| CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration | ||||
| High | 2.065 (1.258–3.390) | 0.004 | 2.057 (1.200–3.524) | 0.009 |
ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; OS = overall survival; RFS = recurrence free survival;
Data obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model, P-value < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.
Comparison of the predictive accuracy of the prognostic models
| Models | Overall survival | Recurrence free survival | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-index | AIC | C-index | AIC | |
| CLEC-2 | 0.615 | 845.59 | 0.615 | 600.31 |
| TNM | 0.706 | 811.82 | 0.608 | 605.91 |
| TNM + CLEC-2 | 0.738 | 804.29 | 0.664 | 597.78 |
| SSIGN | 0.725 | 809.12 | 0.631 | 603.6 |
| SSIGN + CLEC-2 | 0.744 | 801.30 | 0.672 | 595.93 |
| UISS | 0.743 | 804.84 | 0.638 | 608.98 |
| UISS + CLEC-2 | 0.763 | 794.91 | 0.682 | 600.00 |
| Nomogram | 0.813 | 758.85 | 0.716 | 521.21 |
C-index, concordance index; AIC, Akaike information criterion; SSIGN, Mayo clinic stage, size, grade, and necrosis score; UISS, UCLA Integrated Staging System. C-index and AIC were calculated from 1000 bootstrap sample.
Figure 3Prognostic nomograms and calibration plots for OS and RFS prediction
(A) Six independent prognostic factors including CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration, ECOG PS, Fuhrman grade, pathological T stage, necrosis and metastasis were identified and entered into the nomogram. (B) Calibration curves for predicting 8-year OS of ccRCC patients. (C) Calibration curves for predicting 5-year OS of ccRCC patients. (D) Five independent prognostic factors including CLEC-2 positive cell infiltration, ECOG PS, Fuhrman grade, pathological T stage and necrosis were identified and entered into the nomogram. (E) Calibration curves for predicting 8-year RFS of ccRCC patients. (F) Calibration curves for predicting 5-year RFS of ccRCC patients.