| Literature DB >> 30285868 |
Jingjing Duan1,2, Yongwei Xie3, Lijuan Qu4, Lingxiong Wang2, Shunkai Zhou3, Yu Wang2, Zhongyi Fan5, Shengsheng Yang6, Shunchang Jiao7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunoscore, as a prognostic tool defined to quantify in situ immune cell infiltrates, appears to be superior to the TNM staging system. In esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), no immunoscore has been established; however, in situ tumor immunology is recognized as highly important. Our study aimed to construct a comprehensive immunoprofile for ESCC.Entities:
Keywords: CD8; Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Immunoprofile; Nomogram; PD-L1
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30285868 PMCID: PMC6171172 DOI: 10.1186/s40425-018-0418-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 13.751
The baseline characteristics of the primary cohort and the validation cohort
| The primary cohort ( | The validation cohort ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.579 | ||
| Male | 68 (71.6) | 37 (67.3) | |
| Female | 27 (28.4) | 18 (32.7) | |
| Age (years) | 0.342 | ||
| Median | 58 | 59 | |
| Range | 38–81 | 37–78 | |
| Esophagectomy | 0.729 | ||
| R0 | 87 (91.6) | 52 (94.5) | |
| R1 | 8 (8.4) | 3 (5.5) | |
| Grade | 0.870 | ||
| G1 | 9 (9.5) | 4 (7.3) | |
| G2 | 69 (72.6) | 40 (72.7) | |
| G3 | 17 (17.9) | 11 (20.0) | |
| T Stage | 0.340 | ||
| T1a + T1b | 14 (14.7) | 7 (12.7) | |
| T2 | 30 (31.6) | 18 (32.7) | |
| T3 | 33 (33.7) | 25 (45.5) | |
| T4a | 18 (19.0) | 5 (9.1) | |
| N Stage | 0.272 | ||
| N0 | 64 (67.4) | 29 (52.8) | |
| N1 | 18 (18.9) | 13 (23.7) | |
| N2 | 10 (10.5) | 11 (20.0) | |
| N3 | 3 (3.2) | 2 (3.5) | |
| TNM Stage | 0.656 | ||
| IA + IB | 20 (21.0) | 8 (14.5) | |
| IIA + IIB | 34 (35.8) | 20 (36.4) | |
| IIIA+IIIB | 32 (33.7) | 23 (41.8) | |
| IVA | 9 (9.5) | 4 (7.3) |
Fig. 1Correlation of immune cell infiltration and clinical outcome. a Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and multi-color immunofluorescence (IF) staining for CD8+ T cells infiltrating in parenchyma or mesenchyme or both (×200). b Overall survival of patients grouped by different CD8+ T cells infiltrating status. Less than 1% CD8+ T cells infiltrating in parenchyma and meanwhile less than 10% CD8+ T cells infiltrating in mesenchyme were defined as a poor infiltration; the others were regarded as a rich infiltration. c IHC staining and multi-color IF staining for FOXP3+ T cells (× 200). d Overall survival of patients grouped by different FOXP3+ T cells infiltrating status. e IHC staining and multi-color IF staining for CD33+ myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) (× 200). f Overall survival of patients grouped by different CD33+ MDSC infiltrating status. g The correlation between the score of IHC staining and the automatic counting results of IF. h Representative IF images (× 200) of three different status of immune cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment (TME). The more infiltration of immune effective cells was regarded as activated TME, the more infiltration of immune suppressive cells was defined as inhibitory TME, whereas the balanced infiltration of immune cells was considered as equilibrium. i Overall survival of patients grouped by different TME status. CD8 in white, FOXP3 in red, CD33 in orange and CK in green for multi-color IF staining. TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Fig. 2Correlation of checkpoint expression and clinical outcome. a and b Multi-color immunofluorescence (IF) staining for PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (TCs) or immune cells (ICs). c The correlation between the score of IHC staining and the automatic counting results of IF. d High density of PD-L1+ tumor cells predicted poor prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. e Overall survival of patients grouped by different PD-L1 expression in ICs. TC, tumor cell; IC, immune cell
Association between TILs and other immunological biomarkers in the primary cohort (n = 95)
| Biomarker | CD8 rich ( | CD8 poor ( | CD4 rich ( | CD4 poor ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | No. of patients | No. of patients | No. of patients | |||
| Foxp3 |
|
| ||||
| ≥ 1% | 37 | 13 | 45 | 5 | ||
| < 1% | 19 | 26 | 31 | 14 | ||
| CD33 | 0.682 | 0.119 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 38 | 28 | 50 | 16 | ||
| < 1% | 18 | 11 | 26 | 3 | ||
| PD-1 | 0.919 | 0.470 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 25 | 17 | 35 | 7 | ||
| < 1% | 31 | 22 | 41 | 12 | ||
| PD-L1-TC | 0.555 | 0.581 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 19 | 11 | 23 | 7 | ||
| < 1% | 37 | 28 | 53 | 12 | ||
| PD-L1-TC | 0.745 | 0.359 | ||||
| ≥ 10% | 10 | 8 | 13 | 5 | ||
| < 10% | 46 | 31 | 63 | 14 | ||
| PD-L1-IC |
| 0.316 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 22 | 7 | 25 | 4 | ||
| < 1% | 34 | 32 | 51 | 15 | ||
| Tim-3 |
| 0.245 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 26 | 10 | 31 | 5 | ||
| < 1% | 30 | 29 | 45 | 14 | ||
| LAG3 |
| 0.064 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 13 | 3 | 16 | 0 | ||
| < 1% | 43 | 36 | 60 | 19 | ||
| OX40 | 0.535 | 0.107 | ||||
| ≥ 2% | 42 | 27 | 58 | 11 | ||
| < 2% | 14 | 12 | 18 | 8 | ||
| ICOS | 0.200 | 0.354 | ||||
| ≥ 6% | 29 | 15 | 37 | 7 | ||
| < 6% | 27 | 24 | 39 | 12 | ||
| IDO1-TC | 0.441 | 0.679 | ||||
| ≥ 1% | 26 | 15 | 32 | 9 | ||
| < 1% | 30 | 24 | 44 | 10 | ||
| IDO1-IC | 0.616 | 0.172 | ||||
| ≥ 6% | 17 | 10 | 24 | 3 | ||
| < 6% | 39 | 29 | 52 | 16 |
TILs tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, TC tumor cell, IC immune cell
All entries in boldface are below 0.05
The univariate analyses and multivariate analyses for overall survival in the primary cohort
| Prognostic Factor | Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | Score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| ||
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 1 | ||||||
| Female | 1.222 | 0.555–2.703 | 0.621 | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||||
| < 60 | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 60 | 1.595 | 0.700–3.631 | 0.266 | ||||
| History of smoking | |||||||
| No | 1 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.717 | 0.728–4.049 | 0.217 | ||||
| History of drinking | |||||||
| No | 1 | ||||||
| Yes | 1.164 | 0.550–2.463 | 0.691 | ||||
| AJCC TNM Stage | |||||||
| I | 0.039 | 0.007–0.212 |
| 0.056 | 0.007–0.429 |
|
|
| II | 0.103 | 0.025–0.416 |
| 0.061 | 0.011–0.343 |
|
|
| III | 0.181 | 0.047–0.690 |
| 0.088 | 0.020–0.391 |
|
|
| IVA | 1 |
| |||||
| CD8 | |||||||
| poor | 1 | 1 |
| ||||
| rich | 0.172 | 0.074–0.397 |
| 0.353 | 0.127–0.981 |
|
|
| CD4 | |||||||
| poor | 1 | 1 | |||||
| rich | 0.191 | 0.081–0.450 |
| 1.199 | 0.431–3.337 | 0.729 | |
| Foxp3 | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | 1 |
| ||||
| ≥ 1% | 0.327 | 0.147–0.726 |
| 0.215 | 0.080–0.582 |
|
|
| CD33 | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | 1 |
| ||||
| ≥ 1% | 3.348 | 1.334–8.404 |
| 2.956 | 1.026–8.517 |
|
|
| PD-1 | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 1% | 0.607 | 0.274–1.345 | 0.219 | ||||
| PD-L1-TC | |||||||
| < 10% | 1 | 1 |
| ||||
| ≥ 10% | 2.498 | 1.052–5.931 |
| 3.131 | 1.099–8.921 |
|
|
| PD-L1-IC | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 1% | 0.858 | 0.376–1.954 | 0.715 | ||||
| Tim-3 | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | 1 | |||||
| ≥ 1% | 0.478 | 0.210–1.088 |
| 0.405 | 0.148–1.103 | 0.077 | |
| LAG3 | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 1% | 0.391 | 0.093–1.652 | 0.201 | ||||
| OX-40 | |||||||
| < 2% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 2% | 0.577 | 0.266–1.253 | 0.164 | ||||
| ICOS | |||||||
| < 6% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 6% | 0.539 | 0.243–1.194 | 0.128 | ||||
| IDO1-TC | |||||||
| < 1% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 1% | 1.410 | 0.671–2.962 | 0.364 | ||||
| IDO1-IC | |||||||
| < 6% | 1 | ||||||
| ≥ 6% | 1.515 | 0.718–3.198 | 0.276 | ||||
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, TC tumor cell, IC immune cell, #The risk factors with P value less than 0.1 in univariable analysis were selected into multivariate analysis
Fig. 3Development of the prognostic nomogram. a The nomogram for predicting overall survival in patients with ESCC after esophagectomy. To estimate the survival rate of an individual patient, the value of each factor is acquired on each variable axis, followed by a line drawn straightly upward to determine the points. The sum of these five numbers is located on the Total Points axis, then a line is drawn downward to the survival axes to determine the likelihood of survival. b and c The calibration curves for predicting patient overall survival (OS) in the primary cohort (b) and the validation cohort (c). The nomogram-predicted probability of survival is plotted on the x axis, and the actual survival is plotted on the y axis. TC, tumor cell
Fig. 4Survival curves based on the four-immune factor immunoprofile system. a The expression of PD-L1 in tumor cells and the infiltration of CD8+/Foxp3+/CD33+ cells have separated all patients into different risk subgroups using a value of 3.25. b-e Same-stage patients could be separated into different risk subgroups by the immunoprofile. f ROC analyses of 5-year survival rate based on the immunoprofile system and TNM stage for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients (n = 150). AUC, area under the curve