| Literature DB >> 31192136 |
Congfang Guo1,2,3,4,5,6, Hua Zhao1,2,3,4,5, Yu Wang6, Shuai Bai7, Zizhong Yang8, Feng Wei1,2,3,4,5, Xiubao Ren1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the prognostic value of the newly-built Immunoscore (neo-Immunoscore) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Entities:
Keywords: multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry; neo-immunoscore; prognosis; renal carcinoma; risk stratification
Year: 2019 PMID: 31192136 PMCID: PMC6546810 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Distributions of the estimated overall survival (OS) for every group of clinicopathological characteristics.
| Sex | 0.176 | ||
| Male | 52 | 81 | |
| Female | 30 | 95 | |
| Age (years) | 0.120 | ||
| < 60 | 59 | 90 | |
| ≥60 | 23 | 76 | |
| Tumor size | 0.281 | ||
| ≤ 7 | 71 | 89 | |
| >7 | 11 | 72 | |
| Tumor location | 0.305 | ||
| Left | 40 | 82 | |
| Right | 42 | 89 | |
| ECOG standard | 0.013 | ||
| 0 | 62 | 90 | |
| ≥1 | 20 | 69 | |
| Fuhrman's grade | 0.066 | ||
| High | 12 | 91 | |
| Intermediate | 54 | 90 | |
| Low | 16 | 71 | |
| Stage | 0.03 | ||
| I–II | 62 | 91 | |
| III–IV | 20 | 73 | |
| Risk | 0.000 | ||
| Low | 39 | 97 | |
| Intermediate | 31 | 87 | |
| High | 12 | 51 | |
| Neutrophil | 0.116 | ||
| Normal | 70 | 89 | |
| < LLN or >ULN | 12 | 77 | |
| Lymphocyte | 0.219 | ||
| Normal | 77 | 88 | |
| < LLN or >ULN | 5 | 72 | |
| Hemoglobin | 0.136 | ||
| Normal | 72 | 89 | |
| < LLN or >ULN | 10 | 72 | |
| Platelets | 0.001 | ||
| Normal | 71 | 91 | |
| < LLN or >ULN | 11 | 59 | |
| Urea nitrogen | 0.332 | ||
| Normal | 68 | 88 | |
| >ULN | 14 | 78 | |
| LDH | 0.017 | ||
| Normal | 77 | 89 | |
| < LLN or >ULN | 5 | 58 | |
| β2-MG | 0.524 | ||
| Normal | 67 | 89 | |
| >ULN | 15 | 85 |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative ONcology Group; LDH, lactic dehydrogenase; LLN, lower limit of normal; ULN, upper limit of normal; β2-MG, beta-2 microglobulin; OS, overall survival.
P < 0.05;
P < 0.01.
Univariate analysis of 82 RCC patients on all biomarkers and overall survival.
| PD-L | 1.001 | 0.999–1.002 | 0.454 |
| PD-L | 1.001 | 1.000–1.001 | 0.115 |
| CD | 0.998 | 0.995–1.001 | 0.193 |
| CD | 0.992 | 0.986–0.998 | 0.013 |
| CD | 0.996 | 0.992–1.001 | 0.127 |
| CD | 0.995 | 0.988–1.002 | 0.149 |
| CD45RO | 0.997 | 0.992–1.001 | 0.134 |
| CD45RO | 0.999 | 0.993–1.004 | 0.677 |
| Foxp | 1.000 | 0.999–1.002 | 0.684 |
| Foxp | 1.000 | 0.998–1.002 | 0.776 |
| CD4+Foxp | 1.002 | 0.994–1.009 | 0.648 |
| CD4+Foxp | 1.004 | 0.991–1.018 | 0.528 |
| CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO | 0.993 | 0.970–1.017 | 0.591 |
| CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO | 1.018 | 0.992–1.044 | 0.182 |
| TNFR | 1.000 | 0.998–1.003 | 0.679 |
| TNFR | 1.001 | 1.000–1.002 | 0.104 |
| CD4+Foxp3+TNFR | 1.004 | 0.995–1.013 | 0.365 |
| CD4+Foxp3+TNFR | 1.012 | 1.000–1.025 | 0.059 |
| CD3+PD-L | 0.988 | 0.977–0.999 | 0.039 |
| CD3+PD-L | 0.996 | 0.989–1.003 | 0.223 |
| IDO | 1.001 | 0.999–1.004 | 0.331 |
| IDO | 1.000 | 0.999–1.001 | 0.964 |
| PD- | 1.001 | 0.987–1.014 | 0.918 |
| PD- | 0.996 | 0.980–1.012 | 0.616 |
| CD68+PD- | 1.026 | 0.992–1.061 | 0.140 |
| CD68+PD- | 0.852 | 0.623–1.166 | 0.318 |
| CD8+PD- | 1.022 | 0.998–1.047 | 0.071 |
| CD8+PD- | 0.925 | 0.831–1.030 | 0.157 |
| CK | 1.000 | 0.998–1.001 | 0.624 |
| CK | 0.930 | 0.998–1.002 | 0.930 |
| CD | 1.002 | 0.999–1.004 | 0.267 |
| CD | 0.998 | 0.994–1.002 | 0.316 |
| CD | 1.003 | 1.000–1.006 | 0.033 |
| CD | 0.992 | 0.980–1.003 | 0.162 |
| CD8+IDO | 1.015 | 0.988–1.042 | 0.288 |
| CD8+IDO | 0.995 | 0.976–1.014 | 0.604 |
| CD68+IDO | 1.002 | 0.951–1.055 | 0.947 |
| CD68+IDO | 0.989 | 0.944–1.036 | 0.989 |
P < 0.2;
P < 0.05.
Figure 1Multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry staining.
Figure 2Positive correlations between CD and CD CD CD and CD3+PD-L cell densities, respectively (p < 0.01) (A–D).
Figure 3Positive correlations between CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO and PD-L CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO and CD4+Foxp3+TNFR cell densities, respectively (p < 0.01) (A,B,D); Meanwhile, CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO cell densities were positively related with CD45RO cell densities (C) (p < 0.01) and CD4+Foxp3+TNFR cell densities were positively correlated with TNFR cell densities (p < 0.01) (E).
Figure 4Positive correlations between CD8+PD- and CD, CD, CD68+PD-, and CD8+PD- cell densities (p < 0.01) (A–D).
Figure 5Neo-Immunoscore definition and methodology.
Multivariable analysis of 82 RCC patients on the selected biomarkers and overall survival.
| CD3CT | 0.979 | 0.969–0.990 | 0.000 |
| CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO | 1.123 | 1.061–1.188 | 0.000 |
| CD8+PD- | 1.039 | 1.004–1.074 | 0.027 |
Figure 6Comparison of the IS proposed by the SITC and the neo-IS. IS proposed by SITC calculated with CD3 and CD8 by CT/ IM. Neo-IS = 0.021 × CD density−0.116 × CD4+Foxp3+CD45RO density−0.038 × CD8+PD- Density.
Figure 7Survival curves for overall survival (OS) in the neo-ISlow and neo-IShigh groups.
Figure 8Survival curves for overall survival (OS) in RCC patients; an event is defined as death from any cause in OS. The comparisons are as follows: (A) ECOG status; (B) stage; (C) normal or abnormal platelets; (D) risk group; (E) normal or abnormal LDH.
Figure 9Survival curves for overall survival (OS) in RCC patients with low- and intermediate-risk stratification. (A) Low-risk stratification. (B) Intermediate-risk stratification.
Figure 10Survival time of different neo-IS with high-risk RCC patients.