| Literature DB >> 31802941 |
Yuqiao Chen1, Huan Chen2, Beibei Mao2, Yuan Zhou1, Xinying Shi2, Lu Tang1, Hong Jiang3, Guo Wang4, Wei Zhuang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the relationship of the transcriptional tumor immune microenvironment with prognosis of patients with locally advanced lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD).Entities:
Keywords: NSCLC; RNA-Seq; lung adenocarcinoma; transcriptomic markers; tumor immune microenvironment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31802941 PMCID: PMC6827523 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S209571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Baseline Characteristics Of Patients With Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma From Xiangya Hospital
| Characteristic | Favorable Prognosis (n=12) | Poor Prognosis (n=12) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥60 | 4 | 8 | >0.05 |
| <60 | 8 | 4 | |
| Male | 8 | 8 | >0.05 |
| Female | 4 | 4 | |
| T1 | 6 | 6 | >0.05 |
| T2 | 4 | 4 | |
| T3 | 2 | 2 | |
| N1 | 3 | 1 | >0.05 |
| N2 | 9 | 11 | |
| High | 3 | 4 | >0.05 |
| Medium | 7 | 2 | |
| Low | 2 | 6 |
Figure 1(A) Volcano plot of the expression of immune-related genes in patients with favorable rather than poor prognoses. (B) Heatmap of DEGs in patients with favorable and poor prognoses. (C) Boxplots of DEGs in patients with favorable and poor prognoses (center line: median, box: second and third quartiles, bars: 95% CI, points: outliers).
Figure 2Heat map of GSVA enrichment scores of immune-related pathways in patients with favorable and poor prognoses.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier survival analyses of the relationships of different immunological infiltrates with DFS, in which the median value of each MCP-counter score of immune infiltrates was used as the cutoff (Xiangya Hospital LUAD data, n = 24).
Univariate And Multivariate Cox Hazard Analysis Of The Association Of Different Tumor Immunological Infiltrates With PFS (Xiangya Hospital Data, N = 24)
| Cell Type | Univariate Cox Hazard Analysis | Multivariate Cox Hazard Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | aHR | 95% CI | |||
| T cells | 1 | 0.68–1.48 | 0.996 | NA | NA | NA |
| CD8 T cells | 0.78 | 0.48–1.25 | 0.298 | NA | NA | NA |
| Cytotoxic lymphocytes | 1.12 | 0.72–1.76 | 0.612 | NA | NA | NA |
| NK cells | 1.51 | 0.96–2.39 | 0.076 | NA | NA | NA |
| B lineage | 1 | 0.63–1.6 | 0.992 | NA | NA | NA |
| Monocytic lineage | 1.01 | 0.67–1.51 | 0.98 | NA | NA | NA |
| Neutrophils | 1.72 | 1.12–2.65 | 0.014 | 1.67 | 1.09–2.55 | 0.019 |
| Endothelial cells | 0.91 | 0.61–1.38 | 0.668 | NA | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI95, 95% confidence interval; NA, non-available.
Figure 4Forest plot showing multivariate Cox regression analysis of the effect of different tumor immunological infiltrates on DFS (TCGA LUAD data, n = 85). *P<0.05; **P<0.01.
Figure 5Forest plot showing multivariate Cox regression analysis of the effect of different tumor immunological infiltrates on OS (TCGA LUAD data, n = 85). *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.