| Literature DB >> 33116625 |
Jie Wu1,2, Yu-Chen Wang1,2, Wen-Hao Xu1,2, Wen-Jie Luo1,2, Fang-Ning Wan1,2, Hai-Liang Zhang1,2, Ding-Wei Ye1,2, Yuan-Yuan Qu1,2, Yi-Ping Zhu1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The cell-surface ectonucleotidase CD39 is a key molecule of the immunosuppressive adenosine pathway within the tumor microenvironment. However, the relationship between CD39 and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is rarely reported and still remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: CD39; TCGA; immune checkpoint therapy; infiltrating immune cells; prognosis; renal cell carcinoma
Year: 2020 PMID: 33116625 PMCID: PMC7569176 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S272553
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Demographics and Clinical Characteristics of ccRCC Patients According to Their CD39 Expression
| Parameters | All Patients (n=367) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Expression (n=210) | High Expression (n=157) | |||
| Age | 0.815 | |||
| <60 years | 243 (66.2) | 138 (65.7) | 105 (66.9) | |
| ≧60 years | 124 (33.8) | 72 (34.3) | 52 (33.1) | |
| Gender | 0.805 | |||
| Male | 2,48 (67.6) | 143 (68.1) | 105 (66.9) | |
| Female | 119 (32.4) | 67 (31.9) | 52 (33.1) | |
| Invasion deep | 0.003* | |||
| T1/T2 | 303 (82.6) | 184 (87.6) | 119 (75.8) | |
| T3/T4 | 64 (17.4) | 26 (12.4) | 38 (24.2) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.127 | |||
| N0 | 322 (87.7) | 189 (90.0) | 133 (84.7) | |
| N1 | 45 (12.3) | 21 (10.0) | 24 (15.3) | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.002* | |||
| M0 | 308 (83.9) | 187 (89.0) | 121 (77.1) | |
| M1 | 59 (16.1) | 23 (11.0) | 36 (22.9) | |
| pTNM stage | 0.004* | |||
| I/II | 288 (78.5) | 176 (83.8) | 112 (71.3) | |
| III/IV | 79 (21.5) | 34 (16.2) | 45 (28.7) | |
| ISUP grade | 0.147 | |||
| 1/2 | 175 (47.7) | 107 (51.0) | 68 (43.3) | |
| ¾ | 192 (52.3) | 103 (49.0) | 89 (56.7) | |
Notes: Data expressed as count and percentage for categorical variables and were performed by Chi-square test. *p <0.05 between low-expression and high-expression groups.
Abbreviations: ccRCC, clear cell renal cell carcinoma; ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology.
Figure 1Expression of CD39 in ccRCC. (A and B) CD39 expression level in different cancer types in the Oncomine database and TCGA database (analyzed by TIMER). (C and D) CD39 protein expression in ccRCC tissues (C, 200×magnification; D, 400×magnification). (E) CD39 mRNA expression in ccRCC and para-carcinoma normal tissue. (F) The percentage of different CD39 mRNA expression described by different T/N (ccRCC/normal tissue).
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier survival analyses of ccRCC patients stratified by the mRNA expression level of CD39. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves showing OS of patients. (B) Kaplan–Meier curves showing PFS of patients.
Univariate and Multivariate Cox Regression Analyses of PFS in 367 Enrolled ccRCC Patients
| Covariates | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age at surgery | 1.014 (1.002–1.026) | 0.025* | 1.006 (0.994–1.019) | 0.330 |
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.756 (0.556–1.030) | 0.076 | ||
| Invasion deep (T1/T2 vs T3/T4) | 9.811 (6.946–13.858) | <0.001* | 1.313 (0.726–2.374) | 0.368 |
| Lymph node metastasis (N0 vs N1) | 12.235 (8.318–17.997) | <0.001* | 2.389 (1.468–3.888) | <0.001* |
| Distant metastasis (M0 vs M1) | 8.781 (6.293–12.253) | <0.001* | 1.735 (1.076–2.799) | 0.024* |
| pTNM stage (Ⅰ/Ⅱ vs III/Ⅳ) | 12.538 (8.885–17.694) | <0.001* | 4.148 (2.046–8.409) | <0.001* |
| ISUP grade (1/2 vs 3/4) | 2.760 (2.054–3.709) | <0.001* | 1.769 (1.285–2.436) | <0.001* |
| CD39 expression (low vs high) | 1.627 (1.234–2.146) | 0.001* | 1.394 (1.048–1.855) | 0.023* |
Note: *p <0.05.
Abbreviations: PFS, progression-free survival; ccRCC, clear cell renal cell carcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology.
Univariate and Multivariate Cox Regression Analyses of OS in 367 Enrolled ccRCC Patients
| Covariates | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age at surgery | 1.016 (1.003–1.030) | 0.017* | 1.010 (0.997–1.025) | 0.140 |
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.980 (0.698–1.376) | 0.906 | ||
| Invasion deep (T1/T2 vs T3/T4) | 11.455 (7.979–16.444) | <0.001* | 1.332 (0.729–2.433) | 0.351 |
| Lymph node metastasis (N0 vs N1) | 11.027 (7.438–16.346) | <0.001* | 2.055 (1.270–3.325) | 0.003* |
| Distant metastasis (M0 vs M1) | 10.347 (7.244–14.779) | <0.001* | 1.856 (1.118–3.082) | 0.017* |
| pTNM stage (Ⅰ/Ⅱ vs III/Ⅳ) | 14.517 (10.026–21.019) | <0.001* | 4.839 (2.338–10.015) | <0.001* |
| ISUP grade (1/2 vs 3/4) | 3.387 (2.366–4.849) | <0.001* | 1.798 (1.206–2.681) | 0.004* |
| CD39 expression (low vs high) | 1.782 (1.295–2.450) | <0.001* | 1.424 (1.022–1.984) | 0.037* |
Note: *p <0.05.
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; ccRCC, clear cell renal cell carcinoma; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ISUP, International Society of Urological Pathology.
Figure 3Differential expression analysis based on the RNAseq data of ccRCC from TCGA. (A) Volcano plot showing DEGs based on CD39 mRNA expression. The red dots represent up-regulated genes and the blue dots represent down-regulated genes. (B) Expression profiles of DEGs across TCGA ccRCC samples.
Figure 4Functional and gene set enrichment analysis of CD39 based on TCGA ccRCC samples. (A) Pathway enrichment analysis of DEGs based on the hall mark gene sets. (B) GO function analysis of DEGs. The top group represents BP group, the middle group represents CC group and the bottom group represents MF group. (C) DEGs gene-concept network based on the most significant hallmark gene clusters. (D) Plot of the correlation between CD39 and EMT-related gene in TCGA ccRCC samples.
Figure 5Correlation analysis of CD39 expression with infiltrating immune cells via the TIMER database. CD39 expression was significantly and positively correlated with infiltrating levels of immature B cells (A), macrophages (B), mast cells (C), natural killer (NK) cells (D), natural killer T (NKT) cells (E), effector memory CD4 T cells (F), effector memory CD8 T cells (G), type 1 T helper cells (H), type 2 T helper cells (I) and regulatory T (Treg) cells (J).
Figure 6Plot of the correlation between CD39 and PD-1 (A), PD-L1 (B), CTLA4 (C) in TCGA ccRCC samples. High-expression level of CD39 is associated with better overall survival in cohorts of ccRCC patients (D).