| Literature DB >> 30849953 |
Meng Sha1, Seogsong Jeong1, Xin Wang1, Ying Tong1, Jie Cao1, Han-Yong Sun1, Lei Xia1, Ning Xu1, Zhi-Feng Xi1, Jian-Jun Zhang1, Xiao-Ni Kong1, Qiang Xia2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis is considered significant in number of solid malignancies. However, its impact on prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) after resection remains further confirmation. Herein, we conducted this study to evaluate prognostic impact of tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis in patients with ICC.Entities:
Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Overall survival; Prognosis; Recurrence-free survival; Tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30849953 PMCID: PMC6407234 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5420-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinicopathological characteristics of 106 patients with ICC enrolled in the study
| Clinicopathological Characteristics | Value (%) |
|---|---|
| Median age (years) | 60.0 (range, 35–82 years) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 62 (58.5%) |
| Female | 44 (41.5%) |
| HBV infection | |
| Absent | 64 (60.4%) |
| Present | 42 (39.6%) |
| Preoperative AFP (μg/l) | |
| < 9 | 78 (73.6%) |
| ≥ 9 | 28 (26.4%) |
| Preoperative CA19–9 (U/ml) | |
| < 35 | 33 (31.1%) |
| ≥ 35 | 73 (68.9%) |
| Tumor size (mm) | |
| < 50 | 45 (42.5%) |
| ≥ 50 | 61 (57.5%) |
| Tumor number | |
| Single | 89 (84.0%) |
| Multiple | 17 (16.0%) |
| Vascular invasion | |
| Absent | 78 (73.6%) |
| Present | 28 (26.4%) |
| Lymph node metastasis | |
| Absent | 58 (54.7%) |
| Present | 48 (45.3%) |
| Histologic differentiation | |
| Well or moderate | 52 (49.1%) |
| Poor | 54 (50.9%) |
| Distribution | |
| Unilobar | 41 (38.7%) |
| Bilobar | 65 (61.3%) |
| Perineural sheath infiltration | |
| Absent | 92 (86.8%) |
| Present | 14 (13.2%) |
| TNM stage | |
| I | 33 (31.1%) |
| II | 15 (14.2%) |
| III | 10 (9.4%) |
| IV | 48 (45.3%) |
| Tumor recurrence | |
| Absent | 34 (32.1%) |
| Present | 72 (67.9%) |
Fig. 1Immunohistochemical staining of podoplanin for evaluation of tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis in ICC. Podoplanin-positive lymphatic vessels exhibited both open and collapsed lumen, respectively (panel a, b; scale bar = 100 μm). Representative tissue sections for high (c) and low (d) MLVD (scale bar = 200 μm)
Fig. 2Spearman’s correlation test between MLVD and the overall survival. Spearman’s correlation test indicated that the range 4 to 12 MLVDs is a distinctive range with significant inverse proportion to the overall survival (P < 0.0001). However, the range 13 to 25 showed no significant proportion to the overall survival (P = 0.4791), indicating that all patients involved in this range obtained unfavorable prognosis regardless increase of the MLVD. Patients censored before 5 years of follow-up investigation were not included
Spearman’s correlation test for stratification of prognostic subtypes according to the MLVD
| MLVD | n (%) | r (95% CI) | P (two-paired) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 to 4 | 1 (1.3) | NA | NA | NA |
| 4 to 5 | 7 (8.9) | 0.2041 (NA) | 0.5714 | NS |
| 4 to 6 | 11 (13.9) | −0.4077 (−0.8166 to 0.2736) | 0.1013 | NS |
| 4 to 7 | 16 (20.3) | −0.4604 (−0.7847 to 0.0619) | 0.0456 | * |
| 4 to 8 | 19 (24.1) | −0.5844 (− 0.8255 to − 0.1631) | 0.0086 | ** |
| 4 to 9 | 23 (29.1) | −0.6729 (− 0.8531 to − 0.3494) | 0.0004 | *** |
| 4 to 10 | 26 (32.9) | −0.6035 (− 0.8074 to − 0.2709) | 0.0011 | ** |
| 4 to 11 | 27 (34.2) | −0.6182 (− 0.8124 to − 0.3005) | 0.0006 | *** |
| 4 to 12 | 32 (40.5) | −0.6589 (− 0.8229 to − 0.3936) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 13 | 37 (46.8) | −0.6647 (− 0.8169 to − 0.4260) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 14 | 39 (49.4) | −0.6619 (− 0.8119 to − 0.4299) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 15 | 44 (55.7) | − 0.6436 (− 0.7930 to − 0.4212) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 16 | 48 (60.8) | − 0.6377 (− 0.7838 to − 0.4248) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 17 | 50 (63.3) | − 0.6220 (− 0.7709 to − 0.4085) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 18 | 56 (70.9) | − 0.6630 (− 0.7915 to − 0.4784) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 19 | 60 (75.9) | −0.6456 (− 0.7759 to − 0.4624) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 20 | 68 (86.1) | −0.6752 (− 0.7897 to − 0.5152) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 21 | 69 (87.3) | −0.6811 (− 0.7931 to − 0.5247) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 22 | 72 (91.1) | −0.6789 (− 0.7895 to − 0.5256) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 23 | 76 (96.2) | −0.6149 (− 0.7411 to − 0.4466) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 24 | 76 (96.2) | −0.6149 (− 0.7411 to − 0.4466) | < 0.0001 | **** |
| 4 to 25 | 79 (100) | −0.5966 (− 0.7256 to − 0.4271) | < 0.0001 | **** |
Note: Patients censored before 5 years of follow-up were excluded. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001
Abbreviations: MLVD microlymphatic vessel density CI confidence interval. NA not applicable. NS, not significant
Association between micro-lymphatic vessel density (MLVD) and clinicopathological characteristics of the patients with ICC
| Clinicopathological Characteristics | MLVD Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low MLVD | High MLVD | ||
| No. of patients | 56 | 50 | |
| Age (years) | |||
| < 60 | 35 (62.5%) | 21 (42.0%) | 0.035* |
| ≥ 60 | 21 (37.5%) | 29 (58.0%) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 30 (53.6%) | 32 (64.0%) | 0.277 |
| Female | 26 (46.4%) | 18 (36.0%) | |
| HBV infection | |||
| Absent | 27 (48.2%) | 37 (74.0%) | 0.007* |
| Present | 29 (51.8%) | 13 (26.0%) | |
| Preoperative AFP (μg/l) | |||
| < 9 | 40 (71.4%) | 38 (76.0%) | 0.594 |
| ≥ 9 | 16 (28.6%) | 12 (24.0%) | |
| Preoperative CA19–9 (U/ml) | |||
| < 35 | 19 (33.9%) | 14 (28.0%) | 0.511 |
| ≥ 35 | 37 (66.1%) | 36 (72.0%) | |
| Tumor size (mm) | |||
| < 50 | 27 (48.2%) | 18 (36.0%) | 0.204 |
| ≥ 50 | 29 (51.8%) | 32 (64.0%) | |
| Tumor number | |||
| Single | 50 (89.3%) | 39 (78.0%) | 0.114 |
| Multiple | 6 (10.7%) | 11 (22.0%) | |
| Vascular invasion | |||
| Absent | 41 (73.2%) | 37 (74.0%) | 0.921 |
| Present | 15 (26.8%) | 13 (26.0%) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||
| Absent | 40 (71.4%) | 18 (36.0%) | < 0.001* |
| Present | 16 (28.6%) | 32 (64.0%) | |
| Histologic differentiation | |||
| Well or moderate | 29 (51.8%) | 23 (46.0%) | 0.552 |
| Poor | 27 (48.2%) | 27 (54.0%) | |
| Distribution | |||
| Unilobar | 24 (42.9%) | 17 (34.0%) | 0.350 |
| Bilobar | 32 (57.1%) | 33 (66.0%) | |
| Perineural sheath infiltration | |||
| Absent | 49 (87.5%) | 43 (86.0%) | 0.820 |
| Present | 7 (12.5%) | 7 (14.0%) | |
| Tumor recurrence | |||
| Absent | 33 (58.9%) | 1 (2.0%) | < 0.001* |
| Present | 23 (41.1%) | 49 (98.0%) | |
| TNM stage | |||
| I/II | 38(67.9%) | 10(20.0%) | < 0.001* |
| III/IV | 18(32.1%) | 40(80.0%) | |
*p< 0.05 defined as statistical significance
Relationship between micro-lymphatic vessel density (MLVD) and TNM stage in patients with ICC
| Cases | MLVD (mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| TNM stage | |||
| I/II | 48 | 9.46 ± 5.05 |
|
| III/IV | 58 | 15.19 ± 5.70 | |
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival in ICC
| Variable | Univariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Median survival | Confidence interval | ||
| Age | < 60 vs. ≥60 | 24.1 vs. 19.9 | 0.394 | 0.767–1.961 |
| Gender | Male vs. Female | 19.3 vs. 26.1 | 0.074 | 0.957–2.554 |
| HBV infection | Absent vs. Present | 20.2 vs. 25.1 | 0.118 | 0.411–1.106 |
| Preoperative AFP (μg/l) | < 9 vs. ≥9 | 19.5 vs. 29.4 | 0.466 | 0.469–1.414 |
| Preoperative CA19–9 (U/ml) | < 35 vs. ≥35 | 25.1 vs. 20.8 | 0.075 | 0.952–2.849 |
| Tumor size (mm) | < 50 vs. ≥50 | 28.4 vs. 17.5 | 0.003* | 1.312–3.631 |
| Vascular invasion | Absent vs. Present | 24.9 vs. 14.4 | 0.062 | 0.976–2.695 |
| Lymph node metastasis | Absent vs. Present | 30.7 vs. 11.8 | < 0.001* | 1.916–5.215 |
| Tumor number | Single vs. Multiple | 23.6 vs. 14.4 | 0.201 | 0.815–2.646 |
| Histologic differentiation | Well/Moderate vs. Poor | 23.1 vs. 21.2 | 0.561 | 0.719–1.838 |
| Perineural sheath infiltration | Absent vs. Present | 22.6 vs. 19.0 | 0.615 | 0.608–2.321 |
| Distribution | Unilobar vs.Bilobar | 23.2 vs. 21.4 | 0.127 | 0.894–2.457 |
| TNM stage | I/II vs. III/IV | 34.3 vs. 12.0 | < 0.001* | 2.189–6.403 |
| MLVD | Low vs. High | 34.8 vs. 7.9 | < 0.001* | 3.963–12.620 |
*p< 0.05 defined as statistical significance
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival in ICC
| Variable | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Odds ratio | Confidence interval | ||
| Tumor size (mm) | < 50 vs. ≥50 | 1.899 | 1.121–3.217 | 0.017* |
| Lymph node metastasis | Absent vs. Present | 1.116 | 0.493–2.526 | 0.791 |
| TNM stage | I/II vs. III/IV | 1.602 | 0.618–4.150 | 0.332 |
| MLVD | Low vs. High | 5.005 | 2.569–9.752 | < 0.001* |
*p< 0.05 defined as statistical significance
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival in ICC
| Variable | Univariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Median survival | Confidence interval | ||
| Age | < 60 vs. ≥60 | 19.6 vs. 16.3 | 0.254 | 0.827–2.049 |
| Gender | Male vs. Female | 16.7 vs. 20.0 | 0.608 | 0.711–1.793 |
| HBV infection | Absent vs. Present | 14.8 vs. 23.0 | 0.009* | 0.319–0.847 |
| Preoperative AFP (μg/l) | < 9 vs. ≥9 | 15.3 vs. 25.9 | 0.658 | 0.527–1.499 |
| Preoperative CA19–9 (U/ml) | < 35 vs. ≥35 | 22.0 vs. 16.3 | 0.122 | 0.897–2.504 |
| Tumor size (mm) | < 50 vs. ≥50 | 25.0 vs. 12.9 | 0.004* | 1.258–3.321 |
| Vascular invasion | Absent vs. Present | 20.2 vs. 12.0 | 0.322 | 0.782–2.116 |
| Lymph node metastasis | Absent vs. Present | 27.4 vs. 6.8 | < 0.001* | 1.747–4.538 |
| Tumor number | Single vs. Multiple | 19.9 vs. 8.3 | 0.049* | 1.002–3.064 |
| Histologic differentiation | Well/Moderate vs. Poor | 18.0 vs. 18.1 | 0.727 | 0.689–1.706 |
| Perineural sheath infiltration | Absent vs. Present | 14.5 vs. 18.6 | 0.960 | 0.522–1.980 |
| Distribution | Unilobar vs.Bilobar | 20.0 vs. 16.8 | 0.169 | 0.867–2.269 |
| TNM stage | I/II vs. III/IV | 31.0 vs. 7.3 | < 0.001* | 2.047–5.665 |
| MLVD | Low vs. High | 30.7 vs. 3.9 | < 0.001* | 3.442–10.079 |
*p< 0.05 defined as statistical significance
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for recurrence-free survival in ICC
| Variable | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Odds ratio (Confidence interval) | ||
| HBV infection | Absent vs. Present | 0.654 (0.386–1.107) | 0.114 |
| Tumor size (mm) | < 50 vs. ≥50 | 2.006 (1.180–3.410) | 0.010* |
| Tumor number | Single vs. Multiple | 0.888 (0.486–1.623) | 0.700 |
| Lymph node metastasis | Absent vs. Present | 0.982 (0.446–2.160) | 0.963 |
| TNM stage | I/II vs. III/IV | 1.748 (0.715–4.271) | 0.221 |
| MLVD | Low vs. High | 3.762 (2.000–7.077) | < 0.001* |
*p< 0.05 defined as statistical significance
Fig. 3Impact of different level of tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis and tumor size on overall and recurrence-free survival. (a) The overall survival of the high MLVD group (n = 50) was significantly worse than the low MLVD group (n = 56; p < 0.001). (b) The recurrence-free survival of the high MLVD (n = 50) was also significantly unfavorable than the low MLVD group (n = 56; p < 0.001). (c) Overall survival according to tumor size category revealed that patients with tumors ≥50 mm (n = 61) had worse outcomes than those with < 50 mm (n = 45; p = 0.0017). (d) Patients with tumors ≥50 mm (n = 61) also had much worse recurrence-free survival compared with those with < 50 mm (n = 45; p = 0.0018)