| Literature DB >> 33968055 |
Miaoyan Wei1,2,3,4,5, Jin Xu1,2,3,4,5, Jie Hua1,2,3,4,5, Qingcai Meng1,2,3,4,5, Chen Liang1,2,3,4,5, Jiang Liu1,2,3,4,5, Bo Zhang1,2,3,4,5, Wei Wang1,2,3,4,5, Xianjun Yu1,2,3,4,5, Si Shi1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Objective: Immune infiltration plays an important role in tumor development and progression and shows promising prognostic value in numerous tumors. In this study, we aimed to identify the role of immune infiltration in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (Pan-NETs) and to establish an Immunoscore system to improve the prediction of postsurgical recurrence-free survival.Entities:
Keywords: Immunoscore; nomogram; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors; prognosis; recurrence-free survival
Year: 2021 PMID: 33968055 PMCID: PMC8102869 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.654660
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1Workflow of the present study.
Figure 2Immune profiles and candidate immune signatures in Pan-NETs revealed by two GSE datasets (A) Heatmap for immune cell infiltration from the GSE98894 dataset. (B) Enriched T lymphocytes, cytotoxic cells and macrophages showed statistically significant differences between the high- (including high- and moderate-infiltration) and low-infiltration populations. (C) GSEA confirmed most of the biological processes of enriched immune signals. (D) The correlation of immune signature genes and immune cell types is shown. Red boxes indicate a positive correlation; blue boxes indicate a negative correlation. (E) Heatmap for clustering of the GSE73338 dataset with 150 immune signatures resulting in two subgroups with similar immune cell infiltration differences. (F) Enriched immune cell types were significantly different in the GSE73338 population. (*indicates 0.05, **indicates 0.01, ***indicates 0.001).
Figure 3Quantitative Immunoscore establishment and validation in patients with Pan-NETs. (A) Ten immune signatures with statistically significant expression differences selected by qPCR methods in 60 Pan-NET patients for further analysis. (B) Feature selection using the LASSO regression model. Coefficient profile of the immune-related signatures associated with RFS of patients with Pan-NETs. (C) Time-dependent ROC curve describing the prognostic accuracy of the ISpnet and single immune features in the training cohort. (D) Kaplan-Meier curves for recurrence-free survival between the immune signature-defined high-risk and low-risk groups in the training and validation cohorts. (E) Scatter diagram illustrating the ISpnet of the training and validation cohorts. (F) Survival probability of Pan-NET patients with different AJCC/UICC staging system staging in low- and high-ISpnet patients. Ns, No significant.
Clinical characteristics of patients in the training and external validation cohorts.
| Training cohort (N=125) | Validation cohort (N=77) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n) | high risk | low risk | p | Patients (n) | high risk | low risk | p | |
| N | 125 | 28 | 97 | 77 | 13 | 64 | ||
| Age at surgery (years) | ||||||||
| ≤ 55 | 67 (53.6) | 15 (53.6) | 52 (53.6) | 1 | 41 (53.2) | 6 (46.2) | 35 (54.7) | 0.797 |
| >55 | 58 (46.4) | 13 (46.4) | 45 (46.4) | 36 (46.8) | 7 (53.8) | 29 (45.3) | ||
| Sex | ||||||||
| Female | 70 (56.0) | 14 (50.0) | 56 (57.7) | 0.61 | 40 (51.9) | 7 (53.8) | 33 (51.6) | 1 |
| Male | 55 (44.0) | 14 (50.0) | 41 (42.3) | 37 (48.1) | 6 (46.2) | 31 (48.4) | ||
| Location | ||||||||
| Body&Tail | 77 (61.6) | 19 (67.9) | 58 (59.8) | 0.669 | 47 (61.0) | 10 (76.9) | 37 (57.8) | 0.42 |
| Head | 47 (37.6) | 9 (32.1) | 38 (39.2) | 29 (37.7) | 3 (23.1) | 26 (40.6) | ||
| Multifocal | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | ||||||||
| < 2 | 25 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 25 (25.8) | <0.001 | 18 (23.4) | 0 (0.0) | 18 (28.1) | 0.077 |
| 2~4 | 62 (49.6) | 12 (42.9) | 50 (51.5) | 40 (51.9) | 8 (61.5) | 32 (50.0) | ||
| > 4 | 38 (30.4) | 16 (57.1) | 22 (22.7) | 19 (24.7) | 5 (38.5) | 14 (21.9) | ||
| Perineural invasion (PNI) | ||||||||
| Negative | 94 (75.2) | 19 (67.9) | 75 (77.3) | 0.44 | 58 (75.3) | 9 (69.2) | 49 (76.6) | 0.837 |
| Positive | 31 (24.8) | 9 (32.1) | 22 (22.7) | 19 (24.7) | 4 (30.8) | 15 (23.4) | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) | ||||||||
| Negative | 93 (74.4) | 19 (67.9) | 74 (76.3) | 0.513 | 58 (75.3) | 8 (61.5) | 50 (78.1) | 0.362 |
| Positive | 32 (25.6) | 9 (32.1) | 23 (23.7) | 19 (24.7) | 5 (38.5) | 14 (21.9) | ||
| AJCC/UICC T stage | ||||||||
| T1 | 32 (25.6) | 2 (7.1) | 30 (30.9) | 0.004 | 22 (28.6) | 1 (7.7) | 21 (32.8) | 0.258 |
| T2 | 53 (42.4) | 10 (35.7) | 43 (44.3) | 35 (45.5) | 7 (53.8) | 28 (43.8) | ||
| T3 | 39 (31.2) | 16 (57.1) | 23 (23.7) | 19 (24.7) | 5 (38.5) | 14 (21.9) | ||
| T4 | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.6) | ||
| AJCC/UICC N stage | ||||||||
| N0 | 87(69.6) | 14(56.0) | 73(73.0) | 0.056 | 51(66.2) | 9(60.0) | 42(67.7) | 0.297 |
| N1 | 33(26.4) | 11(44.0) | 22(22.0) | 21(27.3) | 6(40.0) | 15(24.2) | ||
| Nx | 5(4.0) | 0(0.0) | 5(5.0) | 5(6.5) | 0(0.0) | 5(8.1) | ||
| AJCC/UICC M stage | ||||||||
| M0 | 104 (83.2) | 21 (75.0) | 83 (85.6) | 0.303 | 70 (90.9) | 11 (84.6) | 59 (92.2) | 0.736 |
| M1 | 21 (16.8) | 7 (25.0) | 14 (14.4) | 7 (9.1) | 2 (15.4) | 5 (7.8) | ||
| WHO grade | ||||||||
| G1 | 49 (39.2) | 8 (28.6) | 41 (42.3) | 0.4 | 34 (44.2) | 6 (46.2) | 28 (43.8) | 0.651 |
| G2 | 71 (56.8) | 19 (67.9) | 52 (53.6) | 39 (50.6) | 7 (53.8) | 32 (50.0) | ||
| G3 | 5 (4.0) | 1 (3.6) | 4 (4.1) | 4 (5.2) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (6.2) | ||
| Functional | ||||||||
| No | 115 (92.0) | 27 (96.4) | 88 (90.7) | 0.558 | 70 (90.9) | 12 (92.3) | 58 (90.6) | 1 |
| Yes | 10 (8.0) | 1 (3.6) | 9 (9.3) | 7 (9.1) | 1 (7.7) | 6 (9.4) | ||
| CgA | ||||||||
| Negative | 5 (4.0) | 1 (3.6) | 4 (4.1) | 1 | 5 (6.5) | 1 (7.7) | 4 (6.2) | 1 |
| Positive | 120 (96.0) | 27 (96.4) | 93 (95.9) | 72 (93.5) | 12 (92.3) | 60 (93.8) | ||
| Syn | ||||||||
| Negative | 1 (0.8) | 1 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0.506 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | NA |
| Positive | 124 (99.2) | 27 (96.4) | 97 (100.0) | 77 (100.0) | 13 (100.0) | 64 (100.0) | ||
| Ki67 | ||||||||
| 1~5% | 91 (72.8) | 17 (60.7) | 74 (76.3) | 0.164 | 19 (24.7) | 10 (76.9) | 48 (75.0) | 1 |
| > 5% | 34 (27.2) | 11 (39.3) | 23 (23.7) | 58 (75.3) | 3 (23.1) | 16 (25.0) | ||
| AJCC/UICC stage | ||||||||
| I | 30 (24.0) | 1 (3.6) | 29 (30.0) | 0.026 | 19 (24.7) | 1 (7.7) | 21 (32.8) | 0.307 |
| II | 53 (42.4) | 13 (46.4) | 40 (41.2) | 31 (40.2) | 7 (53.8) | 26 (40.6) | ||
| III | 21 (16.8) | 7 (25.0) | 14 (14.4) | 12 (15.6) | 3 (23.1) | 12 (18.8) | ||
| IV | 21 (16.8) | 7 (25.0) | 14 (14.4) | 15 (19.5) | 2 (15.4) | 5 (7.8) | ||
Univariate Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors in the training cohort.
| Beta | HR (95% CI) | Wald test | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-16 | -1.3 | 0.28 (0.13-0.6) | 10 | 0.001 |
| CCL19 | -0.98 | 0.37 (0.17-0.81) | 6.3 | 0.012 |
| IRF4 | 1.3 | 3.6 (1.2-10) | 5.5 | 0.019 |
| MUC1 | -0.87 | 0.42 (0.19-0.91) | 4.9 | 0.028 |
| CXCL9 | -0.87 | 0.42 (0.19-0.94) | 4.4 | 0.036 |
| TCF21 | -0.34 | 0.71 (0.33-1.5) | 0.75 | 0.390 |
| PIGR | 0.026 | 1 (0.47-2.3) | 0 | 0.950 |
| CD79A | 0.81 | 2.3 (0.98-5.2) | 3.6 | 0.057 |
| LRG1 | 0.84 | 2.3 (0.87-6.2) | 2.8 | 0.091 |
| CR2 | -0.48 | 0.62 (0.28-1.3) | 1.5 | 0.220 |
| CD4CT | 0.45 | 1.6 (0.63-3.9) | 0.94 | 0.330 |
| CD4PT | -0.78 | 0.46 (0.21-0.99) | 4 | 0.047 |
| CD8IT | 1.4 | 3.9 (1.2-13) | 5 | 0.026 |
| CD8PT | -0.82 | 0.44 (0.2-0.95) | 4.4 | 0.036 |
| CD163 | -1.7 | 0.18 (0.08-0.42) | 16 | <0.001 |
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of prognostic factors in the training and validation cohorts.
| Training cohort | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | |
| T category (T3-4 vs T1-2) | 6.9 (2.9-16) | <0.001 | 1.9 (0.7-5.2) | 0.199 |
| N category (N1 vs N0) | 5.8 (2.6-13) | <0.001 | 1.6 (0.7-3.9) | 0.303 |
| Liver metastasis (M1 vs M0) | 9.8 (4.3-22) | <0.001 | 3.9 (1.6-9.5) | 0.003 |
| WHO grade (G2-3 vs G1) | 22 (2.9-160) | 0.003 | 9.2 (1.1-75.9) | 0.039 |
| ISpnet (low vs high) | 0.061 (0.026-0.140) | <0.001 | 0.091 (0.035-0.235) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | |
| T category (T3-4 vs T1-2) | 2.9 (1.2-6.9) | 0.019 | 1.5 (0.6-4.1) | 0.379 |
| N category (N1 vs N0) | 3.2 (1.3-8.1) | 0.011 | 2.3 (0.7-7.2) | 0.156 |
| Liver metastasis (M1 vs M0) | 9.4 (3.3-26) | <0.001 | 9.5 (2.6-34.7) | <0.001 |
| WHO grade (G2-3 vs G1) | 9.6 (2.2-42) | 0.003 | 6.3 (1.3-29.8) | 0.021 |
| ISpnet (low vs high) | 0.15 (0.06-0.35) | <0.001 | 0.132 (0.045-0.389) | <0.001 |
Figure 4Nomogram for predicting the RFS of Pan-NET patients. (A) Nomogram scoring system based on the independent predictors from the multivariable Cox regression analysis to predict the risk of RFS in Pan-NETs. (B, C) Calibration plots of the nomogram to predict RFS at 5 years in the training cohort and the validation cohort, indicating good agreement between the prediction and the observation.