| Literature DB >> 29562907 |
Xiaobo Bo1, Jie Wang1, Tao Suo1, Xiaoling Ni1, Han Liu1, Sheng Shen1, Min Li1, Yueqi Wang2, Houbao Liu3, Jiejie Xu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported TIMs play an important role in tumors progression or regression, but the effect of TIMs in biliary tract cancer remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of tumor infiltrating mast cells (TIMs) and its influence on gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) benefits in biliary tract cancer patients after surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Biliary tract cancer; Mast cells; Overall survival; Surgery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29562907 PMCID: PMC5863450 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4220-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Representative images of tumor infiltrated mast cells (TIMs) staining in BTC. (a) Low TIMs infiltration. (b) High TIMs infiltration. Scale bar: 200 μm (original magnification × 400). (c, d) Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival in the discovery set and validation set. P value was calculated by log-rank test
Association between mast cell infiltration and patient characteristics
| Discovery set ( | Validation set (n = 135) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Patients | Mast cell infiltration | Patients | Mast cell infiltration | ||||||
| Number | % | Low ( | High (n = 65) |
| Number | % | Low ( | High ( |
| |
| Age, years | 0.71 | 0.61 | ||||||||
| Mean ± SDb | 62.56 ± 10.26 | 62.16 ± 11.51 | 62.86 ± 9.26 | 63.67 ± 11.62 | 61.56 ± 11.72 | 66.18 ± 10.94 | ||||
| Gender | 0.69 | 0.30 | ||||||||
| Female | 62 | 53.91 | 28 | 34 | 91 | 67.41 | 50 | 41 | ||
| Male | 53 | 46.09 | 22 | 31 | 44 | 32.59 | 20 | 24 | ||
| Tumor location | 0.31 | 0.26 | ||||||||
| Perihilar | 40 | 10.43 | 19 | 21 | 24 | 17.78 | 14 | 10 | ||
| Distal | 12 | 63 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 7.41 | 3 | 7 | ||
| Gallbladder | 63 | 54.78 | 24 | 39 | 101 | 74.81 | 57 | 44 | ||
| T-stage | 0.25 | 0.91 | ||||||||
| T1–2 | 41 | 35.65 | 17 | 24 | 16 | 11.85 | 9 | 7 | ||
| T3 | 44 | 38.26 | 16 | 28 | 79 | 58.52 | 41 | 38 | ||
| T4 | 30 | 26.09 | 17 | 13 | 40 | 29.63 | 20 | 20 | ||
| N-stage | 0.008 | 0.87 | ||||||||
| N0 | 62 | 53.91 | 20 | 42 | 114 | 84.44 | 59 | 55 | ||
| N1,2 | 53 | 46.09 | 30 | 23 | 21 | 15.56 | 11 | 10 | ||
| TNM stage | 0.12 | 0.93 | ||||||||
| I-II | 39 | 33.91 | 16 | 23 | 16 | 11.85 | 9 | 7 | ||
| III | 36 | 31.30 | 11 | 27 | 74 | 54.81 | 38 | 36 | ||
| IV | 40 | 34.79 | 23 | 17 | 45 | 33.34 | 23 | 22 | ||
| Differentiation | 0.98 | 0.21 | ||||||||
| Well, Moderate | 76 | 66.09 | 33 | 43 | 59 | 43.70 | 27 | 32 | ||
| Poor | 39 | 33.91 | 17 | 22 | 76 | 56.30 | 43 | 33 | ||
| Residual tumor | 0.16 | 0.21 | ||||||||
| R0 | 100 | 86.96 | 41 | 59 | 119 | 88.15 | 65 | 57 | ||
| R1 | 15 | 13.04 | 9 | 6 | 16 | 11.85 | 5 | 9 | ||
| Vascular invasion | 0.49 | 0.035 | ||||||||
| Absent | 64 | 55.65 | 24 | 27 | 106 | 78.52 | 60 | 46 | ||
| Present | 51 | 44.35 | 26 | 38 | 29 | 21.48 | 10 | 19 | ||
| ACT | 0.78 | 0.49 | ||||||||
| Absent | 65 | 56.52 | 29 | 36 | 85 | 62.96 | 46 | 39 | ||
| Present | 50 | 43.48 | 21 | 29 | 50 | 37.04 | 24 | 26 | ||
SD standard deviation; ACT = adjuvant chemotherapy
a, P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
b, The results of continuous variables are presented as mean ± SD (standard deviation)
Univariate and Multivariate Cox regression analysis of Overall survival
| Discovery set | Validation set | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) |
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) |
| |||
| Age at surgery, years | 0.17 | 0.82 | ||||
| Gender | 0.18 | 0.42 | ||||
| Female | ||||||
| Male | ||||||
| Tumor location | < 0.001 | 0.175 | 0.48 | |||
| Perihilar | Reference | |||||
| Distal | 1.696(0.962–2.991) | |||||
| Gallbladder | 1.150(0.680–1.940) | |||||
| T-stage | < 0.001 | 0.02 | ||||
| T2 | ||||||
| T3 | ||||||
| T4 | ||||||
| N-stage | < 0.001 | 0.92 | ||||
| N0 | ||||||
| N1 | ||||||
| TNM stage | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.046 | ||
| II | Reference | Reference | ||||
| III | 2.84(1.187–6.823) | 0.019 | 2.317(0.860–6.243) | 0.096 | ||
| IV | 4.694(2.064–10.677) | < 0.001 | 3.690(1.245–10.933) | 0.018 | ||
| Differentiation | 0.15 | 0.005 | 0.30 | |||
| Well-moderate | Reference | |||||
| Poor | 1.346(0.767–2.360) | |||||
| Residual tumor | 0.64 | 0.67 | ||||
| R0 | ||||||
| R1 | ||||||
| Vascular invasion | 0.18 | 0.94 | ||||
| Absent | ||||||
| Present | ||||||
| TIMs | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | ||
| Low | Reference | Reference | ||||
| High | 3.210(1.834–5.620) | 2.338(1.371–3.986) | ||||
| CD8 + Tcells | ||||||
| Low | 0.023 | Reference | 0.602 | 0.027 | Reference | 0.218 |
| High | 1.150(0.068–1.943) | 1.382(0.826–2.313) | ||||
CI confidence interval, TIMs tumor infiltrating mast cells
a, P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Fig. 2Association between TIMs infiltration and benefit from gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). (a) Patients without ACT in the discovery set. (b) Patients with ACT in the discovery set. (c) Patients without ACT in the validation set. (d) Patients with ACT in the validation set. P value was calculated by log-rank test
Fig. 3The relationships between TIMs and CD8+ T cells in BTC patients. (a-d) serial sections from GBC and EBDC samples immunohistochemically stained for TIMs and CD8+ T cells. Scale bar: 200 μm (original magnification 200×). (e, f) Spearman’s correlation for TIMs and CD8+ T cells in the discovery set and validation set