| Literature DB >> 30479656 |
Miaomiao Ma1, Yaning Feng2, Peiwen Fan2, Xuan Yao3, Yanchun Peng3, Tao Dong3,4, Ruozheng Wang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is attributable to human papilloma virus (HPV) infection in the majority cases. E1, an HPV derived-protein, plays an important role in the initiation and development of cervical cancer. Our study aims to investigate the HPV E1-specific T cell response in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC).Entities:
Keywords: Cervical squamous cell carcinoma; Enzyme-linked immunoassay; Human papillomavirus 16; PBMC; T cell immune response
Year: 2018 PMID: 30479656 PMCID: PMC6240195 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-018-0206-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 2.965
The HPV E1-specific T cell response in peripheral blood of healthy controls and patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma
| Factor | HPV E1-specific T cell response | |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Mean magnitude (SFC/106) | |
| Healthy controls( | 26.67 | 9.94 |
| Patients | 59.09 | 24.56 |
| 13.433 | −2.594 | |
| 0.000 | 0.009 | |
Fig. 1The HPV E1-specific T cell responses in peripheral blood of healthy controls and patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma by IFN-γELISPOT Assay
The relationship between response frequency of HPV E1-specific T cell response in peripheral blood and clinical features in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma
| Factor |
| Frequency (%) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤54 | 32 | 53.13 | 0.915 | 0.339 |
| > 54 | 34 | 64.71 | |||
| Family history of cancer | No | 59 | 57.63 | 0.678 | 0.767 |
| Yes | 7 | 71.43 | |||
| History of miscarriage | No | 30 | 56.67 | 0.134 | 0.715 |
| Yes | 36 | 61.11 | |||
| Tumor size | ≤5 | 43 | 58.14 | 0.046 | 0.830 |
| > 5 | 23 | 60.87 | |||
| Tumor type | Cauliflower | 25 | 52.00 | 1.868 | 0.60 |
| Nodular | 29 | 58.62 | |||
| Hollow | 7 | 71.43 | |||
| Others | 5 | 80.00 | |||
| Histologic grade | Well | 2 | 0 | 4.465 | 0.215 |
| Moderate | 45 | 64.44 | |||
| Poor | 13 | 53.85 | |||
| Papillary | 6 | 50.00 | |||
| FIGO stage | IIB | 34 | 59.38 | 0.002 | 0.964 |
| IIIA-IIIB | 32 | 58.82 | |||
| SCC-Ag | Normal | 12 | 75.00 | 1.536 | 0.215 |
| Anormal | 54 | 55.56 | |||
| CEA | Normal | 42 | 64.29 | 1.289 | 0.256 |
| Anormal | 24 | 50.00 | |||
| TSGF | Normal | 46 | 54.35 | 1.413 | 0.235 |
| Anormal | 20 | 70.00 | |||
| Pelvic lymph nodes | No | 37 | 64.86 | 1.161 | 0.281 |
| Yes | 29 | 51.72 | |||
N number of patients, FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SCC-Ag Squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, TSGF Tumor specific growth factor
The relationship between response intensity of HPV E1-specific T cell response in peripheral blood and the clinical features in patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma
| Factor |
| Mean magnitude (SFC/106) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤54 | 32 | 20.06 | −0.598 | 0.550 |
| > 54 | 34 | 28.05 | |||
| Family history of cancer | No | 59 | 24.74 | −0.570 | 0.568 |
| Yes | 7 | 23.4 | |||
| History of miscarriage | No | 30 | 24.88 | −0.570 | 0.569 |
| Yes | 36 | 24.32 | |||
| Tumor size | ≤5 | 43 | 23.4 | −0.662 | 0.508 |
| > 5 | 23 | 26.64 | |||
| Tumor type | Cauliflower | 25 | 24.77 | −0.115 | 0.909 |
| Nodular | 29 | 24.65 | |||
| Hollow | 7 | 24.6 | |||
| Others | 5 | 23.5 | |||
| Histologic grade | Well | 2 | 0 | −1.826 | 0.068 |
| Moderate | 45 | 21.31 | |||
| Poor | 13 | 39.28 | |||
| Papillary | 6 | 21.67 | |||
| FIGO stage | IIB | 34 | 27.45 | −2.077 | 0.038 |
| IIIA-IIIB | 32 | 21.53 | |||
| SCC-Ag | Normal | 12 | 23 | −0.419 | 0.675 |
| Anormal | 54 | 25.03 | |||
| CEA | Normal | 42 | 22.56 | −1.239 | 0.215 |
| Anormal | 24 | 29.08 | |||
| TSGF | Normal | 46 | 30.72 | −1.958 | 0.050 |
| Anormal | 20 | 13.57 | |||
| Pelvic | No | 37 | 25.58 | −2.017 | 0.044 |
| Yes | 29 | 22.93 | |||
N number of patients, Mean magnitude of T cell response of the population, FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SCC-Ag Squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, TSGF Tumor specific growth factor
Log-rank analysis of prognostic factors in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients
| Factor | PFS | OS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-year (%) |
| P-value | 3-year (%) |
| |||
| Age | ≤54 | 84.91 | 3.963 | 0.047 | 88.66 | 2.392 | 0.122 |
| > 54 | 64.52 | 67.74 | |||||
| Family history of cancer | No | 71.70 | 1.884 | 0.170 | 75.47 | 1.618 | 0.203 |
| Yes | 100.00 | 100.00 | |||||
| History of miscarriage | No | 66.67 | 2.299 | 0.129 | 74.07 | 0.945 | 0.331 |
| Yes | 80.33 | 80.33 | |||||
| Tumor size | ≤5 | 73.68 | 0.027 | 0.870 | 78.95 | 0.085 | 0.771 |
| > 5 | 74.36 | 74.36 | |||||
| Tumor type | Cauliflower | 76.74 | 0.214 | 0.644 | 76.74 | 0.033 | 0.857 |
| Nodular | 72.00 | 76.00 | |||||
| Hollow | 57.14 | 71.43 | |||||
| Others | 100.00 | 100.00 | |||||
| Histologic grade | Well | 50.00 | 0.239 | 0.625 | 50.00 | 0.066 | 0.797 |
| Moderate | 75.31 | 80.25 | |||||
| Poor | 66.67 | 66.67 | |||||
| Papillary | 83.33 | 83.33 | |||||
| FIGO stage | IIB | 82.46 | 1.271 | 0.260 | 82.46 | 1.166 | 0.280 |
| IIIA-IIIB | 72.41 | 65.52 | |||||
| SCC-Ag | Normal | 90.00 | 1.854 | 0.173 | 90.00 | 1.367 | 0.242 |
| Anormal | 70.53 | 74.74 | |||||
| CEA | Normal | 80.56 | 1.951 | 0.163 | 86.00 | 3.238 | 0.072 |
| Anormal | 62.79 | 62.79 | |||||
| TSGF | Normal | 72.84 | 0.191 | 0.662 | 77.78 | 0.003 | 0.960 |
| Anormal | 76.47 | 76.47 | |||||
| Pelvic lymph nodes | No | 79.59 | 1.698 | 0.193 | 79.59 | 0.571 | 0.450 |
| Yes | 69.70 | 75.76 | |||||
| HPV E1 | Positive | 85.29 | 5.307 | 0.021 | 91.18 | 8.078 | 0.004 |
| Negative | 57.45 | 57.45 | |||||
| Treatment | Radiotherapy + chemotherapy | 78.13 | 1.073 | 0.300 | 81.25 | 0.265 | 0.607 |
| Radiotherapy | 68.63 | 72.55 | |||||
FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SCC-Ag Squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, TSGF Tumor specific growth factor, HPV Human papillomavirus
Cox regression analyses of progression-free survival in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients
| Factor | PFS | OS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | HR | |||
| Age | 5.423 | 0.036 | 4.265 | 0.067 |
| Family history of cancer | – | – | – | – |
| History of miscarriage | 0.521 | 0.304 | 0.735 | 0.634 |
| Tumor size | 1.629 | 0.463 | 2.310 | 0.240 |
| Tumor type | 0.947 | 0.901 | 0.594 | 0.362 |
| Histologic grade | 0.922 | 0.860 | 0.772 | 0.602 |
| FIGO stage | 1.031 | 0.969 | 0.934 | 0.931 |
| SCC-Ag | 0.720 | 0.787 | 0.931 | 0.953 |
| CEA | 0.766 | 0.702 | 1.902 | 0.463 |
| TSGF | 0.381 | 0.171 | 0.657 | 0.571 |
| Pelvic lymph nodes | 5.035 | 0.033 | 2.844 | 0.202 |
| HPV E1-specific T cell response | 7.252 | 0.008 | 7.499 | 0.009 |
| Treatment | 1.595 | 0.405 | 0.118 | 0.851 |
FIGO International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SCC-Ag Squamous cell carcinoma antigen, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, TSGF Tumor specific growth factor, HPV Human papillomavirus
Fig. 2Survival difference between cervical squamous cell carcinoma in patients with or without HPV E1-specific T cells response. a Kaplan-Meier plot for progression-free survival (PFS) analysis of advanced CC patients with or without HPV E1-specific T cell response. b Kaplan-Meier plot for overall survival (OS) analysis of advanced CC patients with or without HPV E1-specific T cell response