| Literature DB >> 32675942 |
Ning Xu1, Zhi-Bin Ke1, Xiao-Dan Lin1, Ye-Hui Chen1, Yu-Peng Wu1, Yu Chen2,3, Ru-Nan Dong1, Shao-Hao Chen1, Xiao-Dong Li1, Yong Wei1, Qing-Shui Zheng1, Yun-Zhi Lin1, Xue-Yi Xue1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer (BCa) is one of the important tumors that have been proven to be treatable with immunotherapy. This study aims to identify and validate a molecular prognostic index of BCa based on immunogenomic landscape analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Immune-related genes; Prognostic index; Survival outcome
Year: 2020 PMID: 32675942 PMCID: PMC7353795 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-020-01343-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Clinicopathological characteristic of 412 patients with BCa from TCGA database
| Clinicopathological characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Age, years | |
| Mean ± SD | 68.09 ± 10.58 |
| Range | 34–90 |
| Gender, n (%) | |
| Female | 108 (26.2) |
| Male | 304 (73.8) |
| Grade, n (%) | |
| High | 388 (94.1) |
| Low | 21 (5.1) |
| Unknown | 3 (0.8) |
| TCGA stage | |
| Stage I | 2 (0.5) |
| Stage II | 131 (31.8) |
| Stage III | 141 (34.2) |
| Stage IV | 136 (33.0) |
| Unknown | 2 (0.5) |
| T stage, n (%) | |
| T0 | 1 (0.2) |
| T1 | 3 (0.7) |
| T2 | 120 (29.1) |
| T3 | 196 (47.6) |
| T4 | 59 (14.3) |
| Unknown | 33 (8.1) |
| N stage, n (%) | |
| N0 | 239 (58.1) |
| N1 | 47 (11.4) |
| N2 | 76 (18.4) |
| N3 | 8 (1.9) |
| Unknown | 42 (10.2) |
| M stage, n (%) | |
| M0 | 196 (47.5) |
| M1 | 11 (2.7) |
| Unknown | 205 (49.8) |
Fig. 1The flow diagram of this study
Fig. 2Genes ontology (GO) analysis of 260 differentially expressed IRGs (a). Enriched pathways of 260 differentially expressed IRGs according to Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis (b)
Fig. 3Univariate Cox regression analysis identifying prognostic differentially expressed IRGs
Fig. 4Construction of protein–protein interaction (PPI) network based on prognostic IRGs (a). the top 10 genes with highest degree scores in PPI network (b)
Multivariate cox analysis to developing a prognostic index based on these differentially expressed IRGs
| Id | Coef | HR | HR.95L | HR.95H | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCN2 | − 0.38509671 | 0.680384831 | 0.410057411 | 1.128923671 | 0.136069967 |
| ISG15 | − 0.00172587 | 0.998275622 | 0.996968943 | 0.999584013 | 0.00980666 |
| ANXA6 | − 0.01992663 | 0.980270596 | 0.962282981 | 0.998594447 | 0.034960381 |
| PSMD11 | 0.043819165 | 1.044793403 | 1.022685278 | 1.067379455 | 5.93E − 05 |
| IGF1 | 0.159618062 | 1.173062748 | 1.003363707 | 1.371463011 | 0.045275692 |
| CALR | 0.002182421 | 1.002184805 | 1.001012743 | 1.003358238 | 0.000256823 |
| TAP2 | − 0.03575826 | 0.964873516 | 0.931495888 | 0.999447141 | 0.046508212 |
| KCNH2 | 0.042402538 | 1.043314368 | 1.023611301 | 1.06339669 | 1.31E − 05 |
| EDNRA | 0.126907424 | 1.135311911 | 1.04384756 | 1.23479058 | 0.003063118 |
| AGTR1 | 0.129747552 | 1.138540924 | 0.981430523 | 1.32080204 | 0.086793836 |
| CMTM8 | 0.030314707 | 1.030778876 | 0.995506182 | 1.067301349 | 0.087927298 |
| RAC3 | 0.020900107 | 1.021120043 | 1.002852063 | 1.039720794 | 0.023257434 |
| ANGPT1 | 0.094626463 | 1.099248169 | 0.989754074 | 1.22085533 | 0.077130021 |
| PLXNB1 | − 0.01956143 | 0.98062865 | 0.958697736 | 1.003061249 | 0.090057108 |
| TRIM27 | − 0.09275545 | 0.911416358 | 0.852085566 | 0.974878357 | 0.006917683 |
| RBP7 | 0.036240038 | 1.036904713 | 1.00604832 | 1.068707499 | 0.018713692 |
| AHNAK | 0.017014449 | 1.01716002 | 1.009977752 | 1.024393363 | 2.53E − 06 |
| IL17RE | 0.05296141 | 1.054388955 | 1.004787773 | 1.106438691 | 0.031220918 |
Fig. 5Comparison of overall survival (OS) between high-risk group and low-risk group in TCGA cohort (a). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of this index in TCGA cohort (b)
Fig. 6External survival validation using GEO cohort (a). Internal survival validation in TCGA cohort (b, c)
Fig. 7Prognostic evaluation of molecular prognostic index. The distribution of risk score (a). The distribution of survival time (b). The expression Heatmap of this index (c)
Fig. 8Univariate (a) and multivariate (b) independent prognostic analysis of independent risk factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with bladder cancer
Univariate and multivariate independent prognostic analysis of independent prognostic factor of overall survival
| Variate | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | P value | HR | 95% CI | P value | |
| age | 1.025 | 0.995–1.058 | 0.104 | 1.022 | 0.990–1.056 | 0.183 |
| gender | 0.560 | 0.309–1.016 | 0.056 | 0.890 | 0.444–1.784 | 0.742 |
| stage | 1.894 | 1.283–2.797 | 0.001 | 1.200 | 0.571–2.520 | 0.630 |
| T | 1.720 | 1.130–2.620 | 0.011 | 1.267 | 0.752–2.134 | 0.375 |
| M | 1.882 | 0.582–6.087 | 0.291 | 0.744 | 0.205–2.698 | 0.652 |
| N | 1.485 | 1.102–2.002 | 0.009 | 1.061 | 0.604–1.864 | 0.836 |
| riskScore | 1.512 | 1.352–1.690 | 0.000 | 1.467 | 1.289–1.679 | 0.000 |
Fig. 9Relationship between this prognostic index and clinical characteristics. T stage (a); Gender (b); grade (c); stage (d); N stage (e)
Relationship between this prognostic index and clinical characteristics
| Id | Age | Gender | Grade | Stage | T | M | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCN2 | − 0.904 (0.368) | 1.049 (0.302) | 1.059 (0.291) | − 1.288 (0.201) | − 1.279 (0.204) | − 0.979 (0.373) | − 1.162 (0.252) |
| ISG15 | 0.893 (0.374) | − 0.605 (0.547) | 4.947 (2.086e−06) | 0.137 (0.892) | 0.041 (0.967) | 1.528 (0.161) | 0.431 (0.667) |
| ANXA6 | − 0.887 (0.377) | 0.733 (0.467) | 6.299 (3.278e−09) | − 3.604 (4.279e−04) | − 2.352 (0.020) | − 0.671 (0.527) | − 1.595 (0.116) |
| PSMD11 | − 1.287 (0.201) | − 0.453 (0.652) | 7.169 (7.037e−08) | − 4.347 (2.882e−05) | − 2.412 (0.018) | 3.207 (0.009) | − 2.466 (0.016) |
| IGF1 | 0.167 (0.868) | 0.814 (0.421) | 2.729 (0.007) | − 3.378 (0.001) | − 2.948 (0.004) | − 0.898 (0.405) | − 1.024 (0.309) |
| CALR | − 0.256 (0.799) | 0.451 (0.654) | 4.962 (6.132e−05) | − 1.421 (0.159) | − 1.134 (0.259) | 2.436 (0.047) | − 0.188 (0.851) |
| TAP2 | 1.139 (0.257) | − 0.224 (0.823) | 7.519 (6.663e−12) | − 0.096 (0.924) | − 0.125 (0.901) | 6.731 (1.292e−07) | − 0.024 (0.981) |
| KCNH2 | 0.413 (0.681) | 0.445 (0.658) | 1.097 (0.282) | − 1.578 (0.117) | − 0.391 (0.696) | − 1.041 (0.345) | − 1.049 (0.298) |
| EDNRA | − 1.864 (0.064) | 0.58 (0.565) | 5.173 (1.908e−06) | − 4.125 (6.153e−05) | − 4.279 (3.448e−05) | − 1.494 (0.193) | − 1.791 (0.077) |
| AGTR1 | − 1.402 (0.164) | 0.621 (0.539) | − 0.81 (0.431) | 0.466 (0.643) | 0.536 (0.593) | 0.235 (0.820) | 0.878 (0.382) |
| CMTM8 | − 1.574 (0.118) | − 2.22 (0.029) | 0.663 (0.517) | − 1.224 (0.224) | − 1.191 (0.236) | − 1.956 (0.105) | − 1.652 (0.103) |
| RAC3 | − 0.403 (0.688) | 1.049 (0.301) | 2.818 (0.007) | − 0.553 (0.582) | 0.045 (0.964) | − 1.121 (0.313) | − 1.672 (0.100) |
| ANGPT1 | 0.012 (0.990) | 1.007 (0.322) | 1.145 (0.265) | − 2.163 (0.032) | − 1.868 (0.064) | − 0.425 (0.686) | − 0.822 (0.413) |
| PLXNB1 | 1.423 (0.158) | − 1.088 (0.282) | − 3.054 (0.008) | 3.497 (8.896e−04) | 2.954 (0.004) | 1.796 (0.112) | 3.924 (1.352e−04) |
| TRIM27 | 1.813 (0.072) | − 2.536 (0.013) | − 2.201 (0.043) | 2.488 (0.015) | 2.611 (0.011) | 3.608 (0.005) | 2.272 (0.026) |
| RBP7 | − 0.684 (0.495) | 1.126 (0.269) | 2.222 (0.028) | − 2.006 (0.047) | − 1.843 (0.068) | − 1.309 (0.247) | − 1.596 (0.118) |
| AHNAK | − 0.781 (0.436) | 1.479 (0.148) | 5.854 (2.277e−07) | − 3.813 (2.06e−04) | − 4.056 (8.06e−05) | 0.93 (0.385) | − 2.199 (0.031) |
| IL17RE | − 1.217 (0.225) | − 0.165 (0.870) | 3.215 (0.002) | − 1.686 (0.094) | − 1.347 (0.180) | − 0.755 (0.483) | − 1.667 (0.099) |
| riskScore | − 0.794 (0.429) | 2.243 (0.032) | 5.871 (7.764e−08) | − 5.649 (9.482e−08) | − 5.054 (1.442e−06) | − 2.051 (0.093) | − 3.08 (0.003) |
Fig. 10Relationship between this prognostic index and immune cell infiltration (a). Relationship between this prognostic index and tumor immune microenvironment. stromal score (a); immune score (b); ESTIMATE score (c); tumor purity (d)