| Literature DB >> 32574962 |
Zhe-Wei Wei1, Jing Wu2, Wei-Bin Huang1, Jin Li2, Xiao-Fang Lu3, Yu-Jie Yuan1, Wen-Jun Xiong4, Xin-Hua Zhang1, Wei Wang4, Yu-Long He5, Chang-Hua Zhang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence indicates that tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are the primary determinant of survival outcomes in various tumours. Thus, we sought to investigate the TIL distribution and density in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) and to develop an immune infiltration (II)-based signature to predict prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours; Immunoscore; Prognosis; Prognostic biomarker; Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32574962 PMCID: PMC7322257 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Construction of the II-GIST signature comprising 4 immune features. (a) Tenfold cross validation for tuning parameter selection in the LASSO model. The solid vertical lines represent partial likelihood deviance ± standard error (SE) values. The dotted vertical lines are drawn at the optimal values according to the minimum criteria and 1-SE criteria. Here, a value of λ= 0.0634 with log(λ)= −2.759 was selected by 10-fold cross validation with the 1-SE criteria. (b) LASSO coefficient profiles of the GIST-associated immune features.
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier analysis of RFS according to individual TIL populations in the TC. (a) CD3+ TC. (b) CD8+ TC. (c) CD45RO+ TC. (d) Foxp3+ TC. (e) CD4+ TC. (f) NKp46+ TC. (g) CD20+ TC.
Clinical characteristics of patients according to the II-GIST Signature in the training and validation cohorts.
| Training Cohort ( | Internal Validation Cohort ( | External Validation Cohort ( | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | High-II-GIST | Low-II-GIST | n | High-II-GIST | Low-II-GIST | n | High II-GIST | Low II-GIST | ||||
| Median age (range) | 56 (23–77) | 56 (27–80) | 0.542 | 56 (26–94) | 59 (28–76) | 0.934 | 60 (27–83) | 61 (44–87) | 0.070 | |||
| Sex | 0.229 | 0.707 | 0.803 | |||||||||
| Male | 72 | 46 | 26 | 120 | 73 | 47 | 45 | 29 | 16 | |||
| female | 58 | 31 | 27 | 74 | 43 | 31 | 66 | 41 | 25 | |||
| tumour size | 0.607 | 0.154 | 0.176 | |||||||||
| ≤5cm | 75 | 43 | 32 | 109 | 70 | 39 | 66 | 45 | 21 | |||
| >5cm | 55 | 34 | 21 | 85 | 46 | 39 | 45 | 25 | 20 | |||
| Primary tumour site | 0.369 | 0.152 | 0.901 | |||||||||
| Stomach | 82 | 51 | 31 | 120 | 67 | 53 | 75 | 47 | 28 | |||
| Non-Stomach | 48 | 26 | 22 | 74 | 49 | 25 | 36 | 23 | 13 | |||
| Mitotic index | 0.202 | 0.251 | 0.041 | |||||||||
| ≤5 | 96 | 60 | 36 | 131 | 82 | 49 | 85 | 58 | 27 | |||
| >5 | 34 | 17 | 17 | 63 | 34 | 29 | 26 | 12 | 14 | |||
| NIH criteria | 0.055 | 0.165 | 0.036 | |||||||||
| High risk | 54 | 26 | 28 | 90 | 48 | 42 | 33 | 15 | 18 | |||
| Intermediate risk | 31 | 23 | 8 | 32 | 19 | 13 | 21 | 16 | 5 | |||
| Very Low/Low risk | 45 | 28 | 17 | 72 | 49 | 23 | 57 | 39 | 18 | |||
| Imatinib therapy | 0.478 | 0.362 | 0.264 | |||||||||
| Yes | 18 | 12 | 6 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 31 | 17 | 14 | |||
| No | 112 | 65 | 47 | 174 | 106 | 69 | 80 | 53 | 27 | |||
Abbreviation: II, Immune-infiltration (II) based Signature; NIH, National Institutes of Health.
Mitotic index, mitoses/50 high-power field;.
Fig. 3Prognostic impact of the II-GIST signature on RFS and OS. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS and OS according to the II-GIST signature in the (a) training cohort, (b) internal validation cohort, and (c) external validation cohort. Left panel: RFS; Right panel: OS.
Fig. 4Prognostic discrimination and relative contribution of the II-GIST signature to the prognosis of GIST patients in the internal and external validation cohorts. Time-dependant ROC curves of II-GIST and NIH risk criteria as predictors of (a) RFS in the internal validation cohort, (b) OS in the internal validation cohort, (c) RFS in the external validation cohort, and (d) OS in the external validation cohort. The relative importance of each risk parameter to survival risk was evaluated using the χ2 test of proportions for clinical parameters and clinical parameters plus the II-GIST signature in the (e) internal validation cohort and (f) external validation cohort.
Fig. 5Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of RFS and OS according to the II-GIST signature in the internal and external validation cohorts stratified by NIH risk criteria (moderate/high and very low/low risk). (a) NIH moderate- and high-risk GISTs in the internal validation cohort. (b) NIH very low- and low-risk GISTs in the internal validation cohort. (c) NIH moderate- and high-risk GISTs in the external validation cohort. (d) NIH very low- and low-risk GISTs in the external validation cohort. Left panel: RFS; Right panel: OS.
Fig. 6Association between the II-GIST signature and survival benefit of imatinib therapy in groups of moderate- and high-risk patients with GIST. (a) Kaplan-Meier analysis of RFS (left panel) and OS (right panel) in the high II-GIST group according to imatinib therapy status. (b) Kaplan-Meier analysis of RFS (left panel) and OS (right panel) in the low II-GIST group according to imatinib therapy status.