| Literature DB >> 27602763 |
Feifei Teng1, Xiangjiao Meng1, Xin Wang1, Jupeng Yuan2, Sujing Liu1, Dianbin Mu3, Hui Zhu1, Li Kong1, Jinming Yu1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with high risk stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, identifying high risk patients remains a challenge. This study aims to identify the patient cohorts more likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy based on the tumor micro-immune environment.Entities:
Keywords: Foxp3; PD-L1; TILs; adjuvant chemotherapy; non-small cell lung cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27602763 PMCID: PMC5325445 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinicopathological characteristics of 126 patients
| Clinicopathological parameters | Cases (%) |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| ≤ 60 | 61(48) |
| > 60 | 65(52) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 85(67) |
| Female | 41(33) |
| Histology | |
| Squamous | 42(33) |
| Adenocarcinoma | 57(45) |
| Large Cell | 27(22) |
| Differentiation | |
| Poor | 30(24) |
| Moderate | 59(47) |
| Well | 37(29) |
| High Risk | |
| Yes | 70(56) |
| No | 56(44) |
Figure 1Immunohistochemical staining for immune markers in NSCLC cells (400x)
CD8, cluster of differentiation 8; Foxp3, transcription factor forkhead; PD-L1, programmed death ligand-1.
Correlations between immune markers expressions and clinicopathologic characteristics
| High CD8+TILs | P value | High PD-L1 | P value | High | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤ 60 | 33/61(54.0%) | 0.622 | 11/61(18.0%) | 0.622 | 32/61(52.4%) | 0.161 |
| > 60 | 38/65(58.4%) | 14/65(21.5%) | 26/65(46.4%) | ||||
| Sex | Male | 49/85(57.6%) | 0.672 | 24/85(28.2%) | <0.001 | 42/85(72.4%) | 0.273 |
| Female | 22/41(53.6%) | 1/41(2.4%) | 16/41(39.0%) | ||||
| Histology | Squamous | 23/42(54.7%) | 0.736 | 17/42(40.4%) | <0.001 | 23/42(54.7%) | 0.018 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 31/57(54.4%) | 4/57(7.0%) | 29/57(50.8%) | ||||
| Large Cell | 17/27(66.7%) | 4/27(14.8%) | 6/27(22.2%) | ||||
| Differentiation | Poor | 18/30(60%) | 0.873 | 10/30(33.3%) | 0.013 | 15/30(50%) | 0.737 |
| Moderate | 32/59(54.2%) | 13/59(22.0%) | 25/59(42.3%) | ||||
| Well | 21/37(56.7%) | 2/37(5.4%) | 18/37(48.6%) | ||||
| High Risk | Yes | 38/70(54.2%) | 0.807 | 12/70(17.1%) | 0.369 | 29/70(41.4%) | 0.246 |
| No | 33/56(58.9%) | 13/56(23.2%) | 29/56(51.7%) | ||||
| CD8+TILs | High | — | 17/71(23.9%) | 0.244 | 35/71(49.2%) | 0.578 | |
| Low | — | 8/52(15.3%) | 23/52(44.2%) | ||||
| PD-L1 | High | — | 16/25(64%) | 0.059 | |||
| Low | — | 42/98(42.8%) |
Statistically significant
Factors associated with DFS and OS in univariate and multivariate analyses
| DFS | OS | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||||||
| HR | 95%CI | P value | HR | 95%CI | P value | HR | 95%CI | P value | HR | 95%CI | P value | |
| Age | 0.985 | 0.953- | 0.363 | 0.980 | 0.944- | 0.278 | ||||||
| Gender | 1.400 | 0.749- | 0.291 | 1.427 | 0.697- | 0.331 | ||||||
| Histology | 1.212 | 0.845- | 0.296 | 1.306 | 0.877- | 0.189 | ||||||
| Differentiation | 1.227 | 0.819- | 0.322 | 1.153 | 0.716- | 0.559 | ||||||
| High risk | 1.794 | 0.986- | 0.056 | 1.565 | 0.835- | 0.162 | 1.947 | 0.992- | 0.053 | 1.885 | 0.935- | 0.145 |
| CD8+TILs | 0.393 | 0.217- | 0.002 | 0.218 | 0.053- | 0.034 | 0.505 | 0.259- | 0.044 | 0.539 | 0.276- | 0.070 |
| PD-L1 | 0.975 | 0.494- | 0.943 | 0.999 | 0.467- | 0.998 | ||||||
| FOXP3+TILs | 1.302 | 0.727- | 0.375 | 0.821 | 0.413- | 0.574 | ||||||
| FOXP3/CD8+TILs | 0.760 | 0.592- | 0.031 | 1.370 | 0.758- | 0.297 | 0.780 | 0.584- | 0.094 | |||
| Circulating Lymphocytes | 1.214 | 0.685- | 0.506 | 1.683 | 0.863- | 0.126 | ||||||
Statistically significant
low-Foxp3 and high-CD8+TILs
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier analysis of DFS and OS according to CD8+TILs, high risk features and Foxp3+TILs in NSCLC
A. Patients with high CD8+TILs achieved longer DFS and OS than patients with low CD8+TILs. B. Patients with low-risk/high-CD8+TILs had significant better DFS than other 3 groups (P<0.05). Although there were no significant differences in other 3 groups, patients with high-risk/high-CD8+TILs seemed show better DFS than patients in other two low-CD8+TILs groups even they show low risk features. In the analysis of OS, patients with low-risk/high-CD8+TILs showed significant longer OS than patients with high-risk/low-CD8+TILs (p=0.003). The differences between other groups were not statistically significant. C. Patients with low-Foxp3/high-CD8+TILs showed better DFS than patients with low-Foxp3/low-CD8+TILs and high-Foxp3/low-CD8+TILs (p=0.048 and 0.017, respectively). No significant differences between these 4 groups were found in the analysis of OS.
Figure 3There's no significant correlation between CD8+TILs and peripheral blood lymphocytes
(r=−0.066; p=0.466).