| Literature DB >> 32208363 |
Qi Ding1,2, Shanshan Dong1,2, Ranran Wang1,2, Keqiang Zhang3, Hui Wang4, Xiao Zhou1,2, Jing Wang3, Kee Wong2, Ying Long1, Shuai Zhu1, Weigang Wang3, Huayi Ren1, Yong Zeng1,2.
Abstract
Mounting evidence suggests that immune cell infiltration within the tumor microenvironment (TME) is a crucial regulator of carcinogenesis and therapeutic efficacy in ovarian cancer (OC). In this study, 593 OC patients from TCGA were divided into high and low score groups based on their immune/stromal scores resulting from analysis utilizing the ESTIMATE algorithm. Differential expression analysis revealed 294 intersecting genes that influencing both the immune and stromal scores. Further Cox regression analysis identified 34 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) as prognostic-related genes. Finally, the nine-gene signature was derived from the prognostic-related genes using a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and Cox regression. This nine-gene signature could effectively distinguish the high-risk patients in the training (TCGA database) and validation (GSE17260) cohorts (all p < 0.01). A time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the nine-gene signature had a reasonable predictive accuracy (AUC = 0.707, AUC =0.696) in both cohorts. In addition, this nine-gene signature is associated with immune infiltration in TME by Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA), and can be used to predict the survival of patients with OC.Entities:
Keywords: LASSO; ovarian cancer; prognosis; risk score; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32208363 PMCID: PMC7138578 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1The overall design of the study. TCGA-OC: TCGA-ovarian serous adenocarcinoma; ESTIMATE: Estimation of STromal and Immune cells in Malignant Tumor tissues using Expression data; LASSO: least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; GSVA: Gene Set Variation Analysis.
Baseline characteristics of study patients.
| 465 | 109 | |
| 59.68±11.49 (mean ± SD) | ||
| Alive | 207(44.5%) | 63 (58.2%) |
| Dead | 258(55.5%) | 46 (41.8%) |
| Stage II | 24(5.2%) | |
| Stage III | 362(77.8%) | 92(84.5%) |
| Stage IV | 17(16.1%) | 17(15.5%) |
| Unknown | 4(0.9%) | |
| GB | 1(0.2%) | |
| G1 | 26(23.6%) | |
| G2 | 56(12.0%) | 40(37.3%) |
| G3 | 397(85.4%) | 43(39.1%) |
| G4 | 1(0.2%) | |
| Unknown | 10(2.2%) | |
| NO | 52(11.2%) | |
| YES | 70(15.1%) | |
| Unknown | 343(73.8%) | |
| NO | 60(12.9%) | |
| YES | 112(24.1%) | |
| Unknown | 293(63.0%) | |
| No Macroscopic disease | 88(18.9%) | |
| 1-10 mm | 214(46.0%) | |
| 11-20 mm | 28(6.0%) | |
| >20 mm | 85(18.3%) | |
| Unknown | 50(10.8%) |
Figure 2Differentially expressed genes based on immune scores and stromal scores. (A) The volcano plot showed that 438 genes were up-regulated and 42 genes down-regulated in the high immune scores group compared with the low scores group. (B) In a similar way, 414 upregulated genes and 18 downregulated genes were identified by comparing stromal scores. (C, D) Significantly enriched gene sets of the immune or stromal score group. (E, F) A total of 281 DEGs were in common among the high immune/stromal score groups and 13 DEGs in low immune/stromal score groups.
Nine prognostic genes significantly associated with OS in the training cohort.
| -0.033 | Protective | Up | 0.90 | 0.85 - 0.96 | <0.001 | |
| 0.066 | Risky | Up | 1.14 | 1.05 - 1.25 | 0.002 | |
| -0.049 | Protective | Up | 0.86 | 0.80 - 0.93 | <0.001 | |
| -0.035 | Protective | Up | 0.90 | 0.82 – 1.00 | 0.048 | |
| -0.003 | Protective | Up | 0.81 | 0.73 - 0.91 | <0.001 | |
| 0.009 | Risky | Up | 1.15 | 1.06 - 1.25 | <0.001 | |
| 0.009 | Risky | Up | 1.21 | 1.04 - 1.40 | 0.012 | |
| 0.032 | Risky | Up | 1.08 | 1.01 - 1.15 | 0.028 | |
| -0.050 | Protective | Down | 0.90 | 0.83 - 0.98 | 0.011 |
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3The nine-gene signature predicts overall survival with ovarian cancer. (A, B) The distribution of risk score, overall survival, vital status, and the heat map of the nine gene expression profile in the training cohort and validation cohort.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier curves to compare overall survival of high-risk and low-risk groups based on the nine-gene signature in the training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B).
Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses in the training cohort.
| 1.022(1.012-1.033) | 1.017(1.006-1.028) | |||
| G2 | Referent | |||
| G3 | 1.165(0.820-1.654) | 0.394 | ||
| Unknown | 1.194(0.531-2.684) | 0.669 | ||
| II | Referent | |||
| III | 2.355(1.109-5.001) | |||
| IV | 2.961(1.350-6.495) | |||
| Unknown | 3.923(0.814-18.91) | 0.089 | ||
| No | Referent | |||
| Yes | 0.967(0.560-1.671) | 0.905 | ||
| Unknown | 1.249 (0.867-1.934) | 0.318 | ||
| No | Referent | |||
| Yes | 1.264(0.798-2.001) | 0.127 | ||
| Unknown | 1.094 (0.732-1.636) | 0.374 | ||
| No Macroscopic disease | Referent | Referent | ||
| 1-10 mm | 1.899(1.324-2.722) | 1.469(1.006-2.144) | ||
| 11-20 mm | 2.191(1.259-3.814) | 2.034(1.140-3.629) | ||
| >20 mm | 2.313(1.536-3.483) | 1.803(1.177-2.762) | ||
| Unknown | 0.975(0.595-1.597) | 0.919 | 1.034(0.626-1.709) | 0.896 |
| 21.48(10.15-45.42) | 15.60(6.963-34.96) | |||
Figure 5Time-dependent ROC curves were generated to evaluate the nine-gene signature performance. (A, B) Three-years or five-years ROC curves of the nine-gene signature in the training cohort and validation cohort. © Five-years ROC curves for nine-gene signature and single gene. (D) Five-years ROC curves for nine-gene signature and clinical risk factor.
Figure 6The relationship between the nine-gene signature and immune infiltration. (A) Comparison of relative immune cell abundance based on GSVA score in high-risk and low-risk groups (B) Partial Spearman's correlation of nine genes expression and immune infiltrates. *: Statistically significant p < 0.05, **: Statistically significant p < 0.01.