| Literature DB >> 33836680 |
Liwei Wang1,2, Fu Chen3, Rui Liu1, Lei Shi3, Guosheng Zhao3, Zhengjian Yan4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is a vital component in cancer treatment. However, due to the complex genetic bases of cancer, a clear prediction index for efficacy has not been established. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) is one of the essential factors that affect immunotherapeutic efficacies, but it has not been determined whether the mutation is associated with the survival of Skin Cutaneous Melanoma (SKCM) patients. This study aimed at evaluating the correlation between TMB and immune infiltration.Entities:
Keywords: ICB; SKCM; Survival analysis; TCGA; TMB
Year: 2021 PMID: 33836680 PMCID: PMC8034108 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08083-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical baseline of 447 SKCM patients
| Variables | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Alive | 239 (53.5%) |
| Dead | 208B (46.5%) |
| | 57.8 ± 15.6 |
| Male | 279 (62.4%) |
| Female | 168 (37.6%) |
| I/II NOS | 10 (2.3%) |
| Stage 0 | 6 (1.3%) |
| Stage I | 77 (17.2%) |
| Stage II | 131 (29.3%) |
| Stage III | 170 (38.0%) |
| Stage IV | 20 (4.5%) |
| Unknown | 33 (7.4%) |
| T0/Tis | 30 (6.7%) |
| T1 | 42 (9.4%) |
| T2 | 76 (17.0%) |
| T3 | 88 (19.7%) |
| T4 | 144 (32.2%) |
| TX | 42 (9.4%) |
| Unknown | 25 (5.6%) |
| N0 | 222 (49.7%) |
| N1 | 73 (16.3%) |
| N2 | 49 (11.0%) |
| N3 | 55 (12.3%) |
| NX | 31 (6.9%) |
| Unknown | 17 (3.8%) |
| M0 | 402 (89.9%) |
| M1 | 21 (4.7%) |
| Unknown | 24 (5.4%) |
| Primary tumor | 95 (21.2%) |
| Metastatic | 352 (78.8%) |
Fig. 1Mutation profile landscape in SKCM samples. a Waterfall plot showing the mutation details of every gene in every sample; b,c,d Various types of mutation classified based on different groups; e, f burden of tumor mutation in particular samples; g Top ten mutated genes. Various types of mutations are represented by different color annotations at the right-bottom
Fig. 2TMB prognosis and its relationship with clinical features. Higher TMB levels correlated with better OS (a), better DSS (b), and better PFI (c); d-i Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis test in groups of different clinical characteristics
Fig. 3Differentially expression analysis and Construction of TMB-IP. a Top 50 DEGs were displayed in heatmap plot; b GO results of 504 DEGs; c GSEA revealed the top TMB- associated pathways revealed that low-TMB was correlated with immune-related pathways; d Survival analysis based on the immunescore; e-g Univariate-lasso-multivariate Cox regression of 38 immune-related DEGs; h Survival analysis based on the TMB-IP score; i Multi-year ROC curves based on the TMB-IP score; j-m Survival analysis of four immune-related hub genes based on their RNA expression levels; n-s Survival analysis of six clinical subgroups based on high and low TMB-IP grouping
Fig. 4Associations mutants with immune cells infiltration of four hub genes. a-d Mutants (Arm-level Deletion, Deep Deletion, High Amplication, Arm-level Gain) of four TMB-associated genes exhibited low level of immune cell infiltration compared with Diploid/Normal
Fig. 5Twenty-two immune fractions in low vs. high-TMB groups. a Barplot of the 22 immune fractions denoted by different colors: b Wilcoxon test of 22 immune fractions in high- vs. low-TMB group
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of six immune infiltration cells and four immune-related genes
| covariates | coef | HR | 95%CI_lower | 95%CI_uper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B_cell | 1.132 | 3.101 | 0.095 | 100.923 | 0.524 |
| CD8_Tcell | −1.421 | 0.242 | 0.02 | 2.869 | 0.261 |
| CD4_Tcell | 0.089 | 1.093 | 0.047 | 25.157 | 0.956 |
| Macrophage | 1.938 | 6.944 | 0.728 | 66.19 | 0.092 |
| Neutrophil | −0.53 | 0.589 | 0.001 | 478.663 | 0.877 |
| Dendritic | −1.378 | 0.252 | 0.045 | 1.428 | 0.119 |
| ADCYAP1R1 | 0.244 | 1.277 | 0.848 | 1.923 | 0.242 |
| LIF | −0.134 | 0.875 | 0.805 | 0.951 | 0.002 |
| GAL | 0.058 | 1.06 | 0.978 | 1.148 | 0.156 |
| PGLYRP3 | 0.163 | 1.177 | 1.001 | 1.384 | 0.049 |
Rsquare = 0.111 (max possible = 9.93e-01); Likelihood ratio test p = 2.94e-07; Wald test p = 5.64e-07; Score (logrank) test p = 1.82e-07