| Literature DB >> 31998783 |
Jia Li1, Huiyu Wang2, Zhaoyan Li1, Chenyue Zhang3, Chenxing Zhang4, Cheng Li5, Haining Yu6, Haiyong Wang6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Establishing prognostic gene signature to predict clinical outcomes and guide individualized adjuvant therapy is necessary. Here, we aim to establish the prognostic efficacy of a gene signature that is closely related to tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31998783 PMCID: PMC6975218 DOI: 10.1155/2020/2147397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Screening genes associated with prognosis and building risk models. (a) Trend graph of LASSO coefficients. (b) Partial likelihood deviation map. (c) The name and coefficient of the 5-gene signature closely related to the immune system.
Clinicopathological characteristics of NSCLC patients in the training set.
| Variables | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| <65 | 37 | 28.5 |
| ≥65 | 93 | 71.5 |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 34 | 26.2 |
| Male | 96 | 73.8 |
| Histology | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 96 | 73.8 |
| Squamous | 31 | 23.8 |
| Other | 3 | 2.3 |
| T stage | ||
| Tis | 5 | 3.8 |
| T1 | 53 | 40.8 |
| T2 | 49 | 37.7 |
| T3 | 16 | 12.3 |
| T4 | 7 | 5.4 |
| N stage | ||
| N0 | 104 | 80 |
| N1 | 12 | 9.2 |
| N2 | 14 | 10.8 |
| Radiation | ||
| Yes | 14 | 10.8 |
| No | 116 | 89.2 |
| Chemotherapy | ||
| Yes | 37 | 28.5 |
| No | 93 | 71.5 |
| EGFR status | ||
| Yes | 19 | 14.6 |
| No | 82 | 63.1 |
| Unknown | 29 | 22.3 |
| ALK status | ||
| Yes | 2 | 1.5 |
| No | 97 | 74.6 |
| Unknown | 31 | 23.8 |
| KRAS status | ||
| Yes | 24 | 18.5 |
| No | 77 | 59.2 |
| Unknown | 29 | 22.3 |
Figure 2Estimating the composition of immune cells. (a) The ratio of dendritic cells activated in the high-risk and low-risk groups. (b) The ratio of mast cells resting in the high-risk and low-risk groups.
Figure 3The changes in the pathways of 130 samples in the low-risk and high-risk groups.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier survival curves and ROC curves in the training set. (a) Kaplan–Meier survival curves for relapse-free survival in the training set. (b) Kaplan–Meier survival curves for overall survival in the training set. (c) ROC curves of the risk model and TNM staging in the training set.
Figure 5Kaplan–Meier survival curves for overall survival and progression-free survival in the validating set. Kaplan–Meier survival curves for overall survival in the (a) GSE31210 set, (b) GSE41271 set, and (c) TCGA.
The correlation between the 5-gene signature and different mutant genes.
| Variables | Low risk | High risk |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| EGFR status | 0.0112 | ||
| Yes | 18 | 1 | |
| No | 54 | 28 | |
| ALK status | 1 | ||
| Yes | 2 | 0 | |
| No | 57 | 20 | |
| KRAS status | 0.7944 | ||
| Yes | 17 | 7 | |
| No | 68 | 29 |
The univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses between the 5-gene signature and other clinical factors of NSCLC patients.
| Variables | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | Lower | Higher |
| HR | Lower | Higher |
| |
| 5-gene signature (high vs. low) | 3.93 | 2.17 | 7.1 | 0 | 5.18 | 2.6995 | 9.945 | <0.001 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (yes vs. no) | 1.37 | 0.58 | 3.26 | 0.476 | 1.03 | 0.4226 | 2.514 | 0.947 |
| Pleural invasion (yes vs. no) | 1.15 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 0.679 | 1.38 | 0.6977 | 2.745 | 0.352 |
| Chemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 1.1 | 0.59 | 2.05 | 0.76 | 0.94 | 0.4066 | 2.168 | 0.883 |
| Radiation (yes vs. no) | 1.26 | 0.56 | 2.84 | 0.579 | 1.42 | 0.4903 | 4.107 | 0.519 |