| Literature DB >> 32690665 |
Ya-Qin Wang1, Lei Chen1, Yan-Ping Mao1, Ying-Qing Li1, Wei Jiang2, Shuo-Yu Xu1, Yu Zhang1, Yu-Pei Chen1, Xiao-Min Li1, Qing-Mei He1, Shi-Wei He1, Xiao-Jing Yang1, Yuan Lei1, Yin Zhao1, Jing-Ping Yun1, Na Liu1, Yingqin Li1, Jun Ma3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have been reported as prognostic markers in tumors. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of total T cell (CD3+) density, cytotoxic T cell (CD8+) density and memory T cell (CD45RO+) density in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).Entities:
Keywords: histopathology; immunology; oncology
Year: 2020 PMID: 32690665 PMCID: PMC7371227 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000334
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 13.751
Figure 1Representative images of CD3, CD8 and CD45RO expression and digital pathology. (A) High and low expression of CD3+, CD8+ and CD45RO+ T cells; (B) The classification of tumor and stroma areas was based on tumor cell density map. The scale bar represents 100 µm.
Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients in the training and validation cohorts stratified by immune score
| All | Training cohort (n=221) | Validation cohort (n=115) | |||||
| Low | High | P value | Low | High | P value | ||
| Total population | 336 (100) | 68 (30.8) | 153 (69.2) | 49 (42.6) | 66 (57.4) | ||
| Age | 0.69 | ||||||
| ≤45 years | 163 (48.5) | 34 (50.0) | 81 (52.9) | 15 (30.6) | 33 (50.0) | ||
| >45 years | 173 (51.5) | 34 (50.0) | 72 (47.1) | 34 (69.4) | 33 (50.0) | ||
| Sex | 0.76 | 0.12 | |||||
| Male | 254 (75.6) | 52 (76.5) | 114 (74.5) | 41 (83.7) | 47 (71.2) | ||
| Female | 82 (24.4) | 16 (23.5) | 39 (25.5) | 8 (16.3) | 19 (28.8) | ||
| WHO pathological type | 0.51 | 0.26 | |||||
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | 8 (2.4) | 1 (1.5) | 4 (2.6) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (4.5) | ||
| Ⅲ | 328 (97.6) | 67 (98.5) | 149 (97.4) | 49 (100.0) | 63 (95.5) | ||
| T stage | 0.61 | ||||||
| T1–T2 | 136 (40.5) | 22 (32.4) | 55 (35.9) | 19 (38.8) | 40 (60.6) | ||
| T3–T4 | 200 (59.5) | 46 (67.6) | 98 (64.1) | 30 (61.2) | 26 (39.4) | ||
| N stage | 0.59 | 0.61 | |||||
| N0–N1 | 200 (59.5) | 50 (73.5) | 107 (69.9) | 17 (34.7) | 26 (39.4) | ||
| N2–N3 | 136 (40.5) | 18 (26.5) | 46 (30.1) | 32 (65.3) | 40 (60.6) | ||
| TNM stage | 0.90 | 0.13 | |||||
| I–II | 87 (25.9) | 19 (27.9) | 44 (28.8) | 7 (14.3) | 17 (25.8) | ||
| III–IV | 249 (74.1) | 49 (72.1) | 109 (71.2) | 42 (85.7) | 49 (74.2) | ||
| Treatment | 0.56 | 0.35 | |||||
| RT alone | 31 (9.2) | 5 (7.4) | 15 (9.8) | 3 (6.1) | 8 (12.1) | ||
| RT +chemo | 305 (90.8) | 63 (92.6) | 138 (90.2) | 46 (93.9) | 58 (87.9) | ||
| EBV-DNA load (copy/mL) | 0.46 | NA | |||||
| ≤2000 | 122 (55.2) | 35 (51.5) | 87 (56.9) | NA | NA | ||
| >2000 | 99 (44.8) | 33 (48.5) | 66 (43.1) | NA | NA | ||
| Death | |||||||
| Yes | 74 (22.0) | 21 (30.9) | 18 (11.8) | 22 (44.9) | 13 (19.7) | ||
| No | 262 (78.0) | 47 (69.1) | 135 (88.2) | 27 (55.1) | 53 (80.3) | ||
| Distant metastasis | | ||||||
| Yes | 56 (16.7) | 15 (22.1) | 16 (10.5) | 17 (34.7) | 8 (12.1) | ||
| No | 280 (83.3) | 53 (77.9) | 137 (89.5) | 32 (65.3) | 58 (87.9) | ||
| Locoregional failure | 0.28 | | |||||
| Yes | 51 (15.2) | 9 (13.2) | 13 (8.5) | 17 (34.7) | 12 (18.2) | ||
| No | 285 (84.8) | 59 (86.8) | 140 (91.5) | 32 (65.3) | 54 (81.8) | ||
| Disease progression | |||||||
| Yes | 94 (28.0) | 23 (33.8) | 26 (17.0) | 29 (59.2) | 16 (24.2) | ||
| No | 242 (72.0) | 45 (66.2) | 127 (83.0) | 20 (40.8) | 50 (75.8) | ||
Bold values were considered significant
EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; NA, not applicable; RT, radiotherapy; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curves for OS according to CD3, CD8 and CD45RO expression. Plots show (A) I-CD3; (B) S-CD3; (C) I&S-CD3; (D) I-CD8; (E) S-CD8; (F) I&S-CD8; (G) I-CD45RO; (H) S-CD45RO; and (I) I&S-CD45RO in the training cohort. I, intratumoral; S, stromal; I&S, intratumoral and stromal.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier curves for OS, DFS and DMFS according to the immune score. Plots show (A) OS, (B) DFS and (C) DMFS in the training cohort and (D) OS, (E) DFS and (F) DMFS in the validation cohort.
Figure 4Univariate analysis of factors associated with overall survival, disease-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival in the training and validation cohorts. Plots show (A) overall survival, (B) disease-free survival and (C) distant metastasis-free survival. EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; IS, immune score; TNM, tumor, node and metastasis.
Multivariable Cox regression analysis of factors associated with overall survival, disease-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival in the training and validation cohorts
| Training cohort (n=221) | Validation cohort (n=115) | |||
| HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Overall survival | ||||
| IS (3–6 vs 0–2) | 0.34 (0.18 to 0.63) | 0.42 (0.21 to 0.84) | ||
| TNM Stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 3.49 (1.23 to 9.87) | 10.7 (1.46 to 78.9) | ||
| EBV-DNA (>2000 vs ≤2000) | 1.96 (1.01 to 3.78) | NA | NA | |
| Disease-free survival | ||||
| IS (3–6 vs 0–2) | 0.44 (0.25 to 0.78) | 0.37 (0.20 to 0.68) | ||
| TNM stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 2.79 (1.18 to 6.62) | 7.01 (1.68 to 29.2) | ||
| EBV-DNA (>2000 vs ≤2000) | 2.13 (1.18 to 3.86) | NA | NA | |
| Distant metastasis-free survival | ||||
| IS (3–6 vs 0–2) | 0.43 (0.21 to 0.87) | 0.32 (0.14 to 0.75) | ||
| TNM stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 3.52 (1.06 to 11.7) | 7.68 (1.02 to 58.0) | ||
| EBV-DNA (>2000 vs ≤2000) | 2.31 (1.08 to 4.93) | NA | NA | |
Bold values were considered significant
EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; IS, immune score; NA, not applicable; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis.
Figure 5Nomogram and calibration plots for predicting 3-year and 5-year OS. (A) Nomogram A including IS, TNM stage and EBV-DNA; (B, C) showed the calibration plots for predicting 3-year and 5-year OS in NPC patients from the training cohort. EBV, Epstein-Barr virus; IS, immune score; NPS, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; OS, overall survival; TNM, tumor, node, and metastasis.