| Literature DB >> 30153850 |
Wan-Yu Chen1,2,3,4, Chen-Tu Wu5,6, Chun-Wei Wang1,3,7, Keng-Hsueh Lan1,3,4, Hsiang-Kuang Liang1,3,4, Bing-Shen Huang8, Yih-Leong Chang9,10, Sung-Hsin Kuo11,12,13,14,15, Ann-Lii Cheng3,16,17,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in operable tongue cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: Adjuvant; Head neck cancer; Prognosis; Tongue cancer; Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30153850 PMCID: PMC6114480 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-1099-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Clinicopathologic characteristics of the patients
| Total patients | |
|---|---|
| No. (%) | |
| Gender | |
| Female | 16 (17.2%) |
| Male | 77 (82.8%) |
| Age | |
| < 60 years | 75 (80.6%) |
| ≧ 60 years | 18 (19.4%) |
| T classification | |
| T1/T2 | 52 (55.9%) |
| T3/T4 | 41 (44.1%) |
| N classification | |
| N0/N1 | 35 (37.6%) |
| N2/N3 | 58 (62.4%) |
| LVI | |
| No | 29 (39.7%) |
| Yes | 44 (60.3%) |
| PNI | |
| No | 15 (18.7%) |
| Yes | 65 (81.3%) |
| ECE | |
| No | 36 (48%) |
| Yes | 39 (52%) |
| Differentiation | |
| Well | 17 (34.7%) |
| Moderate/Poor | 32 (65.3%) |
| Margin | |
| Negative | 41 (45.1%) |
| Close/Positive | 50 (54.9%) |
| Median RT dose (cGy) | 6600 (range, 600–7000) |
| Chemotherapy | |
| RT alone | 13 (14%) |
| CCRT | 80 (86%) |
Abbreviation: CCRT concurrent chemoradiotherapy, ECE extracapsular extension, LVI lymphovascular invasion, PNI perineural invasion, RT radiotherapy
Fig. 1Representative specimens of immunostaining: high expression of CD3 (a), low expression of CD3 (b), high expression of CD4 (c), low expression of CD4 (d), high expression of CD8 (e), low expression of CD8 (f), high expression of FOXP3 (g), and low expression of FOXP3 (h)
Fig. 2Correlation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte markers with pathological characteristics. The degree of correlation among CD4 (a), CD4/FOXP3 ratio (b), CD3/CD4 ratio (c), CD4/CD8 ratio (d) differs according to the pathological lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status. The correlation between CD4 and the CD8/FOXP3 ratio in LVI-negative (e) and LVI-positive tumors (f)
Significance of clinicopathologic parameters and TIL markers for survival
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Year survival | HR (95% CI) | |||
|
| ||||
| ECE (Yes vs. No) | 46.2% vs. 94.4% | 0.000 | 19.713 (2.594–149.833) | 0.004 |
| N classification (N2/N3 vs. N0/N1) | 56.8% vs. 93.4% | 0.001 | 6.473 (1.465–28.609) | 0.014 |
| Margin (Close/Positive vs. Negative) | 60.6% vs. 80.8% | 0.054 | ||
| Stage (early vs. advanced) | 94.7% vs. 66.4% | 0.009 | ||
| CD8/FOXP3 (High vs. Low) | 87.3% vs. 63.8% | 0.006 | 0.115 (0.017–0.791) | 0.028 |
|
| ||||
| Differentiation (Moderate/Poor vs. Well) | 58.5% vs. 93.3% | 0.017 | 8.679 (1.127–66.871) | 0.038 |
| Gender (Male vs. Female) | 70.9% vs. 100% | 0.019 | ||
| Margin (Close/Positive vs. Negative) | 66.9% vs. 85.8% | 0.030 | ||
| ECE (Yes vs. No) | 66.4% vs. 79.0% | 0.095 | ||
|
| ||||
| ECE (Yes vs. No) | 57.8% vs. 86.0% | 0.018 | 5.268 (1.503–18.466) | 0.022 |
| N classification (N2/N3 vs. N0/N1) | 65.2% vs. 81.7% | 0.098 | 16.335 (1.484–179.799) | 0.024 |
| Differentiation (Moderate/Poor vs. Well) | 57.7% vs. 88.2% | 0.059 | ||
| CD8 (Low vs. High) | 65.9% vs. 83.2% | 0.069 | ||
| FOXP3 (High vs. low) | 49.3% vs. 87.3% | 0.000 | 7.487 (1.786–31.395) | 0.006 |
| CD8/FOXP3 (High vs. Low) | 84.1% vs. 61.8% | 0.014 | ||
|
| ||||
| ECE (Yes vs. No) | 66.8% vs. 94.4% | 0.007 | 3.929 (0.489–31.590) | 0.042 |
| N classification (N2/N3 vs. N0/N1) | 70.3% vs. 97.1% | 0.003 | 2.980 (0.370–24.033) | 0.035 |
| Stage (early vs. advanced) | 100% vs. 72.0% | 0.005 | ||
| CD3/CD4 (High vs. Low) | 70.2% vs. 90.5% | 0.026 | ||
| CD4/FOXP3 (High vs. Low) | 93.7% vs. 68.4% | 0.002 | 0.032 (0.003–0.384) | 0.007 |
Abbreviation: Advanced stage 4, CI confidence interval, DMFS distant metastasis free survival, Early stage stage 1/2/3, ECE extracapsular extension, HR hazard ratio, LRFS local recurrence free survival, OS overall survival, RRFS regional recurrence free survival
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier survival curve: for (a) OS according to CD8/FOXP3 ratio, b RRFS according to FOXP3 expression, and (c) DMFS according to CD4/FOXP3 ratio