| Literature DB >> 32982423 |
Yenlin Huang1,2, Chieh Lin3, Huang-Kai Kao2,4, Shao-Yu Hung4, Hung-Ju Ko2, Yu-Chen Huang5, Yu-Liang Chang5, Kai-Ping Chang2,6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The presence of CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) has been reported to be associated with treatment outcomes in many types of solid tumors. However, the results vary due to the various methods of visual estimation and subjective interpretation. The current study is the first to use digital image analyses to evaluate the density of CD8+/CD3+ TILs in tongue squamous cell carcinoma (TSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2015, a cohort of 258 TSCC patients were consecutively enrolled in this study. After immunohistochemistry on representative sections, the density of CD8+/CD3+ TILs at tumor invasive margins was evaluated by digital image analysis. The subjects were stratified by the median values of CD3+ cell density, CD8+ cell density, CD8/CD3, and scores (0, 1, and 2) to demonstrate the association with various clinicopathological manifestations.Entities:
Keywords: SCC; TIL; oral cancer; oral cavity; squamous cell carcinoma; tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte
Year: 2020 PMID: 32982423 PMCID: PMC7490039 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S255816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1(A–D) The invasive margin of two representative cases of tongue squamous cell carcinoma. (hematoxylin and eosin stain; 20x (A, B) and 200x (C, D) original magnification). (E–H) A case example of the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) counting strategy. Examples of images from the same region of interest under 200x magnification from used to extract total positive staining counts in Image Pro. The total TIL counts were calculated based on the transfer of data from CD3 and CD8 IHC images to black-and-white grid format. (E, CD3 IHC image; F, CD3 Image-Pro image; G, CD8 IHC image, H, CD8 Image-Pro image; 200x original magnification).
Clinical, Pathological, and Laboratory Characteristics of Patients
| Characteristics | Number | Percentage, % |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 222 | 86.0 |
| Female | 36 | 14.0 |
| T1 | 70 | 27.1 |
| T2 | 102 | 39.5 |
| T3 | 29 | 11.3 |
| T4 | 57 | 22.1 |
| N0 | 165 | 64.0 |
| N1 | 33 | 12.8 |
| N2 | 60 | 23.2 |
| I | 62 | 24.0 |
| II | 64 | 24.8 |
| III | 43 | 16.7 |
| IV | 89 | 34.5 |
| No | 96 | 37.2 |
| Yes | 162 | 62.8 |
| No | 68 | 26.4 |
| Yes | 190 | 73.6 |
| No | 69 | 26.7 |
| Yes | 189 | 73.3 |
| 258 | 52.7 ± 11.8 (83.9, 21.9) | |
| 258 | 2059.0 ± 868.7 (4594.8, 309.4) | |
| 258 | 1253.8 ± 693.3 (3491.3, 151.7) | |
| 258 | 0.59 ± 0.16 (1.02, 0.16) |
Associations of CD3+ Cell Density, CD8+ Cell Density, CD8/CD3 and Scores with Clinicopathological Characteristics
| Characteristics | CD3 | CD8 | CD8/CD3 | Score | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| >2016/mm2a | ≤2016/mm2a | >1125/mm2a | ≤1125/mm2a | >0.592a | ≤0.592a | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| n= 129 | n=129 | n= 129 | n= 129 | n= 129 | n=129 | n= 92 | n=74 | n=92 | |||||
| 52.2 ± 11.9 (83.9, 28.5) | 53.2 ± 11.7 (83.6, 21.9) | 0.4746 | 52.6 ± 11.6 (83.9, 28.5) | 52.8 ± 12.0 (83.6, 21.9) | 0.9196 | 54.2 ± 12.6 (83.9, 21.9) | 51.1 ± 10.7 (83.6, 28.5) | 0.0409c | 52.2 ± 10.7 (83.6, 29.9) | 51.4 ± 13.1 (82.6, 21.9) | 54.2 ± 11.7 (83.9, 29.5) | 0.2541 | |
| Male | 114 | 108 | 0.2810 | 109 | 113 | 0.4723 | 107 | 115 | 0.1506 | 81 | 66 | 75 | 0.2889 |
| Female | 15 | 21 | 20 | 16 | 22 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 17 | ||||
| 1–2 | 93 | 79 | 0.0645 | 94 | 78 | 0.0346c | 89 | 83 | 0.4281 | 55 | 51 | 66 | 0.2023 |
| 3–4 | 36 | 50 | 35 | 51 | 40 | 46 | 37 | 23 | 26 | ||||
| (-) | 82 | 83 | 0.8968 | 79 | 86 | 0.3641 | 85 | 80 | 0.5168 | 60 | 46 | 59 | 0.9194 |
| (+) | 47 | 46 | 50 | 43 | 44 | 49 | 32 | 28 | 33 | ||||
| I–II | 64 | 62 | 0.8033 | 65 | 61 | 0.6183 | 67 | 59 | 0.3191 | 42 | 36 | 48 | 0.6755 |
| III–IV | 65 | 67 | 64 | 68 | 62 | 70 | 50 | 38 | 44 | ||||
| (-) | 104 | 99 | 0.4472 | 104 | 99 | 0.4472 | 106 | 97 | 0.1713 | 69 | 58 | 76 | 0.4508 |
| (+) | 25 | 30 | 25 | 30 | 23 | 32 | 23 | 16 | 16 | ||||
| No | 79 | 71 | 0.3127 | 78 | 72 | 0.4489 | 83 | 67 | 0.0435c | 47 | 45 | 58 | 0.2224 |
| Yes | 50 | 58 | 51 | 57 | 46 | 62 | 45 | 29 | 34 | ||||
| | 11.2 ± 9.7 (65.0, 0.0) | 13.1 ± 12.4 (73.0, 1.0) | 0.5024 | 10.7 ± 9.7 (65.0. 0.0) | 13.6 ± 12.3 (73.0, 1.0) | 0.0346c | 10.6 ± 10.3 (65.0, 0.5) | 13.7 ± 11.8 (73.0, 0.0) | 0.0040c | 14.8 ± 13.1 (73.0, 1.0) | 11.0 ± 8.3 (35.0, 0.0) | 10.5 ± 10.6 (65.0, 0.5) | 0.0184c |
Notes: aMedian. bMean ± SD (Maximum, Minimum). cStatistically significant.
Abbreviation: ENE, extranodal extension.
Figure 2The Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrates the association of (A) overall stage, (B) Perineural invasion, (C) Extranodal extension, (D) Tumor depth, (E) CD3+ tumor-infiltrating leukocytes (TILs), (F) CD8+ TILs, (G) CD8/CD3, and (H) Scores with patient prognoses.
Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Overall Survival in Patients with Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Treatment
| Variables | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | |||
| 1.002 | 0.984–1.020 | 0.8445 | 1.011 | 0.990–1.033 | 0.2933 | |
| Male | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Female | 0.834 | 0.430–1.619 | 0.5921 | 1.033 | 0.514–2.076 | 0.9279 |
| I–II | Reference | Reference | ||||
| III–IV | 5.449 | 3.145–9.440 | <0.0001b | 2.572 | 1.321–5.007 | 0.0054 |
| No | Reference | |||||
| Yes | 1.926 | 1.453–2.553 | <0.0001b | |||
| (-) | Reference | Reference | ||||
| (+) | 5.952 | 3.799–9.325 | <0.0001b | 3.084 | 1.827–5.206 | <0.0001b |
| ≤5 mma | Reference | Reference | ||||
| >5 mma | 5.460 | 2.206–13.513 | 0.0002b | 2.332 | 0.872–6.234 | 0.0916 |
| <2016/mm2a | Reference | |||||
| >2016/mm2a | 0.690 | 0.444–1.071 | 0.0980 | |||
| <1125/mm2a | Reference | |||||
| >1125/mm2a | 0.597 | 0.383–0.930 | 0.0227b | |||
| <0.592a | Reference | |||||
| >0.592a | 0.652 | 0.419–1.015 | 0.0580 | |||
| 2 | Reference | Reference | ||||
| 1 | 0.657 | 0.388–1.111 | 0.1174 | 0.718 | 0.420–1.229 | 0.2270 |
| 0 | 0.512 | 0.301–0.871 | 0.0135b | 0.559 | 0.324–0.965 | 0.0369b |
Notes: aMedian. bStatistically significant
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ENE, extranodal extension.