| Literature DB >> 33442265 |
Hong Wu1, Yulong Wei2, Mei Jian1, Hong Lu2, Qingzhu Song3, Liheng Hao4, Yong Yue4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing amount of evidence reveals that immunosuppression is a major issue in cancer progression. The association of immunoscore (IS) and its impact on clinical outcome have been studied in many tumor types, but its significance in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is poorly known.Entities:
Keywords: PDL1; immunoscore; intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; microenvironment; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33442265 PMCID: PMC7797318 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S288982
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Figure 1Expression of CD3 and CD8 by immune cells that infiltrated tumor interior (TI) and invasive margin (IM) of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) patients. Representative images of H&E, CD3 and CD8 staining in ICC samples are shown at ×100 original magnification. The red dotted line indicates the invasive margin. (A) High CD3- and CD8-expressing cells infiltrated in TI. (B) Low CD3- and CD8-expressing cells infiltrated in TI. (C) High CD3- and CD8-expressing cells infiltrated in IM. (D) Low CD3- and CD8-expressing cells infiltrated in IM.
Clinicopathological Variables and Their Association with Immunoscore (IS)
| Patient Demographics | IS0–1 | IS2 | IS3–4 | Total(%) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30(60) | 8(16) | 12(24) | 50(100.0) | ||
| 0.620 | |||||
| <60 | 13(54.2) | 5(20.8) | 6(25.0) | 24(48.0) | |
| ≥60 | 17(65.4) | 3(11.5) | 6(23.1) | 26 (52.0) | |
| Male | 15(60.0) | 4(16.0) | 6(24.0) | 25(50.0) | 1.000 |
| Female | 15(60.0) | 4(16.0) | 6(24.0) | 25(50.0) | |
| Single | 24(57.1) | 6(14.3) | 12(28.6) | 42(84.0) | 0.210 |
| Multiple | 6(75.0) | 2(25.0) | 0(0.0) | 8(16.0) | |
| Negative | 25(59.5) | 7(16.7) | 10(23.8) | 42(84.0) | 0.958 |
| Positive | 5(62.5) | 1(12.5) | 2(25.0) | 8(16.0) | |
| 6(66.7) | 1(11.1) | 2(22.2) | 9(18.0) | 0.878 | |
| 9 (81.8) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (9.1) | 11 (22.0) | 0.241 | |
| 17 (54.8) | 6 (19.4) | 8 (25.8) | 31 (62.0) | 0.592 | |
| <5 | 19(61.3) | 3(9.7) | 9(29.0) | 31 (62.0) | 0.232 |
| ≥5 | 11(57.9) | 5(26.3) | 3(15.8) | 19 (38.0) | |
| Well | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 2 (4.0) | 0.026* |
| Moderately | 18 (52.9) | 7 (20.6) | 9 (26.5) | 34 (68.0) | |
| Poorly | 12 (85.8) | 1 (7.1) | 1 (7.1) | 14 (28.0) | |
| 6 (66.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (33.3) | 9 (18.0) | 0.327 | |
| 4 (66.7) | 1 (16.7) | 1 (16.7) | 6 (12.0) | 0.902 | |
| 11 (91.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (8.3) | 12 (24.0) | 0.034* | |
| TNM I/II | 15 (46.9) | 6 (18.8) | 11 (34.4) | 32 (64.0) | 0.031* |
| TNMIII/IV | 15 (83.3) | 2 (11.1) | 1 (5.6) | 18 (36.0) | |
Note: *P<0.05.
Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19–9.
Figure 2High immunoscore (IS) indicated better overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). (A) OS of patients grouped by IS. (B) RFS of patients grouped by IS.
Figure 3High degree of CD8 expression cell infiltration in the invasive margin (IM) was significantly correlated with better prognosis. (A and B) OS and RFS of patients grouped by expression of CD3 in tumor interior (TI). (C and D) OS and RFS of patients grouped by expression of CD3 in invasive margin (IM). (E and F) OS and RFS of patients grouped by expression of CD8 in tumor interior (TI). (G and H) OS and RFS of patients grouped by expression of CD8 in tumor interior (IM).
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis for Overall Survival in ICC Patients
| Univariate Analysis | Overall Survival HR (95% CI) | Recurrence-Free Survival HR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <60 | 0.082 | 1 | 0.726 | 1 | 0.496 |
| ≥60 | 3.255(0.756–14.008) | 1.661(0.385–7.177) | |||
| Male | 0.942 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Female | |||||
| Negative | 0.350 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Positive | |||||
| Present | 0.445 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Absent | |||||
| >37 | 0.278 | 1 | 1 | ||
| ≤37 | |||||
| <5 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.674 | 1 | 0.601 |
| ≥5 | 1.331(0.352–5.033) | 0.676(0.156–2.933) | |||
| Well | 0.268 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Moderately | |||||
| Poorly | |||||
| Present | 0.101 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Absent | |||||
| Present | 0.006* | 1 | 0.726 | 1 | 0.466 |
| Absent | 0.735(0.132–4.102) | 0.546(0.107–2.782) | |||
| Present | 0.040* | 1 | 0.436 | 1 | 0.929 |
| Absent | 0.457(0.064–3.281) | 0.911(0.117–7.074) | |||
| TNM I/II | 0.003* | 1 | 0.548 | 1 | 0.723 |
| TNM III | 0.695(0.212–2.280) | 1.231(0.390–3.883) | |||
| IS0-1 | 0.033* | 1 | 0.048* | 1 | 0.105 |
| IS2 | 0.176(0.031–0.981) | 0.248(0.046–1.341) | |||
| IS3-4 | |||||
Note: *P<0.05.
Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19–9.
Figure 4Examples of PD-L1 staining in representative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) samples. Representative images of H&E and PD-L1 staining in ICC samples are shown at ×100 original magnification. Placental tissues were used as positive control tissues for PD-L1 staining. Tumor cells show membranous positivity (red arrows). In the second row, some stromal inflammatory cells show membranous PD-L1 expression (green arrows), while tumor cells are negative.
Clinicopathological Variables and Their Association with PD-L1 Expression of ICCs
| Patient Demographics | PD-L1 Positive | PD-L1 Negative | Total (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30(60) | 8(16) | 12(24) | ||
| <60 | 19(79.2) | 5(20.8) | 24(48.0) | 0.305 |
| ≥60 | 23(65.4) | 3(11.5) | 26(52.0) | |
| Male | 23(92.0) | 2(8.0) | 25(50.0) | 0.123 |
| Female | 19(76.0) | 6(24.0) | 25(50.0) | |
| Single | 35(83.3) | 7(16.7) | 42(84.0) | 0.210 |
| Multiple | 7(87.5) | 1(12.5) | 8(16.0) | |
| Negative | 36(85.7) | 6(14.3) | 42(84.0) | 0.378 |
| Positive | 6(75.0) | 2(25.0) | 8(16.0) | |
| 8(88.9) | 1(11.1) | 9(18.0) | 0.555 | |
| 9 (81.8) | 2 (18.2) | 11 (22.0) | 0.570 | |
| 26 (83.9) | 5 (16.1) | 31 (62.0) | 0.649 | |
| <5 | 26(83.9) | 5(16.1) | 31 (62.0) | 0.649 |
| ≥5 | 16(84.2) | 3(15.8) | 19 (38.0) | |
| Well | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (4.0) | 0.694 |
| Moderately | 29 (85.3) | 5 (14.7) | 34 (68.0) | |
| Poorly | 11(78.6) | 3(21.4) | 14 (28.0) | |
| 8 (88.8) | 1 (11.1) | 9 (18.0) | 0.555 | |
| 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) | 6 (12.0) | 0.044* | |
| 9 (75.0) | 3 (25.0) | 12 (24.0) | 0.287 | |
| TNM I/II | 29 (90.6) | 3 (9.4) | 32 (64.0) | 0.098 |
| TNMIII/IV | 13 (72.2) | 5 (27.8) | 18 (36.0) | |
| IS0-1 | 5 (16.7) | 25 (83.3) | 30 (60.0) | 0.958 |
| IS2 | 1 (12,5) | 7 (87.5) | 8 (16.0) | |
| IS3-4 | 2 (16.7) | 10 (83.3) | 12 (24.0) | |
Note: *P<0.05.
Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19–9.
Figure 5High degree of PD-L1 expression indicated poor overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). (A) OS of patients grouped by PD-L1 expression. (B) RFS of patients grouped by PD-L1 expression.