| Literature DB >> 34336695 |
Yaxiao Lu1, Jingwei Yu1, Wenchen Gong2, Liping Su3, Xiuhua Sun4, Ou Bai5, Hui Zhou6, Xue Guan2, Tingting Zhang1, Lanfang Li1, Lihua Qiu1, Zhengzi Qian1, Shiyong Zhou1, Bin Meng2, Xiubao Ren2, Xianhuo Wang1, Huilai Zhang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the role of tumor-infiltrating T cells in follicular lymphoma (FL) has been reported previously, the prognostic value of peripheral blood T lymphocyte subsets has not been systematically assessed. Thus, we aim to incorporate T-cell subsets with clinical features to develop a predictive model of clinical outcome.Entities:
Keywords: T lymphocyte subsets; follicular lymphoma; peripheral blood; prognostic index; risk stratification
Year: 2021 PMID: 34336695 PMCID: PMC8316046 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.708784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Baseline patient characteristics.
| Characteristics | All patients | % | Training set | % | Internal validation set | % | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 252) | (n = 177) | (n = 75) | |||||
|
| 0.768 | ||||||
| ≤60 years | 178 | 71 | 126 | 71 | 52 | 69 | |
| >60 years | 74 | 29 | 51 | 29 | 23 | 31 | |
|
| 0.215 | ||||||
| Male | 126 | 50 | 93 | 53 | 33 | 44 | |
| Female | 126 | 50 | 84 | 47 | 42 | 56 | |
|
| |||||||
| I/II | 42 | 17 | 31 | 18 | 11 | 15 | 0.579 |
| III/IV | 210 | 83 | 146 | 82 | 64 | 85 | |
|
| |||||||
| Absence | 212 | 84 | 147 | 83 | 65 | 87 | 0.473 |
| Presence | 40 | 16 | 30 | 17 | 10 | 13 | |
|
| |||||||
| 0-1 | 249 | 99 | 175 | 99 | 74 | 99 | 0.892 |
| >1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
|
| |||||||
| <5 | 70 | 28 | 53 | 30 | 17 | 23 | 0.238 |
| ≥5 | 182 | 72 | 124 | 70 | 58 | 77 | |
|
| |||||||
| ≤6cm | 202 | 80 | 144 | 81 | 58 | 78 | 0.256 |
| >6cm | 42 | 17 | 26 | 15 | 16 | 21 | |
| Not available | 8 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
|
| 0.744 | ||||||
| Absence | 201 | 80 | 147 | 83 | 54 | 72 | |
| Presence | 51 | 20 | 30 | 17 | 21 | 28 | |
|
| 0.141 | ||||||
| Absence | 175 | 69 | 118 | 67 | 57 | 76 | |
| Presence | 77 | 31 | 59 | 33 | 18 | 24 | |
|
| 0.563 | ||||||
| Normal | 207 | 82 | 147 | 83 | 60 | 80 | |
| Decreased | 45 | 18 | 30 | 17 | 15 | 20 | |
|
| 0.245 | ||||||
| Normal | 215 | 85 | 154 | 87 | 61 | 81 | |
| Elevated | 37 | 15 | 23 | 13 | 14 | 19 | |
|
| 0.573 | ||||||
| Normal | 182 | 72 | 126 | 71 | 56 | 75 | |
| Elevated | 70 | 28 | 51 | 29 | 19 | 25 | |
|
| 0.291 | ||||||
| ≥120 | 205 | 81 | 141 | 80 | 64 | 85 | |
| <120 | 47 | 19 | 36 | 20 | 11 | 15 | |
|
| 0.581 | ||||||
| ≥150 | 203 | 81 | 141 | 80 | 62 | 83 | |
| <150 | 49 | 19 | 36 | 20 | 13 | 17 | |
|
| |||||||
| ≥30.7% | 168 | 67 | 116 | 66 | 52 | 69 | 0.559 |
| <30.7% | 84 | 33 | 61 | 34 | 23 | 31 | |
|
| |||||||
| ≤36.6% | 193 | 77 | 137 | 77 | 56 | 75 | 0.639 |
| >36.6% | 59 | 23 | 40 | 23 | 19 | 25 | |
|
| |||||||
| ≥0.8 | 198 | 79 | 136 | 77 | 62 | 83 | 0.302 |
| <0.8 | 54 | 21 | 41 | 23 | 13 | 17 | |
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 218 | 87 | 154 | 87 | 64 | 85 | 0.722 |
| No | 34 | 13 | 23 | 13 | 11 | 15 |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; LoDLIN, longest diameter of the largest involved node; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; β2-MG, β2-microglobulin; Hb, Hemoglobin.
Figure 1Cut-off values determination for CD4+, CD8+ and CD4+/CD8+ and survival analyses. The optimal cut-off values, denoted by black circles in the left panels, are displayed in histograms of the entire cohort (middle panels), and Kaplan-Meier plots are displayed in the right panels. (A) The optimal cut-off values for CD4+ was 30.7% (χ2 = 10.036, P=0.005). (B) for CD8+ was 36.6% (χ2 = 5.238, P =0.023). (C) for CD4+/CD8+ was 0.8 (χ2 = 10.637, P=0.006).
Figure 2The predictive factors were selected using LASSO regression analysis and nomogram construction. (A) Screening for tuning parameter (lambda) in the LASSO regression model. The partial likelihood deviance was calculated as a function of log (lambda), with the least deviance in partial probability corresponding to the optimal number of variables. The dotted vertical lines represented the optimal lambda value on the basis of 1 standard error and the minimum criteria. (B) The profiles of LASSO coefficient of the non-zero variables of FL patients. When 8 variables remained, the lowest partial probability deviance was observed. (C) For using the nomogram, place the value assigned to the individual patient on each variable axis, and draw an upward line for the determination of the number of points received for each variable value. The sum of these numbers is obtained on the total points axis, and a line is drawn down to the survival axis to calculate the 1, 3, 5-year PFS likelihood. LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PFS, progression-free survival.
Figure 3Discrimination and calibration of the nomogram to predict 1, 3, 5-year PFS likelihoods in patients with follicular lymphoma. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and the calibration curve for the prediction of 1-year PFS (A, B), 3-year PFS (C, D), 5-year PFS (E, F); The PFS probability predicted by, the nomogram is plotted on x-axis; while the actual PFS is plotted on the y axis.
Figure 4Progression-free survival (PFS) for risk groups defined by 4 scoring systems. (A) FLIPI, (B) FLIPI2, (C) PRIMA-PI, (D) Training set of the ICPI, (E) Internal validation set of the ICPI, (F) External validation set of the ICPI.
Comparisons between model performance for PFS.
| Training set (n = 177) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICPI | FLIPI | FLIPI2 | PRIMA-PI | |
| C-index† (95% CI) | 0.679 (0.580-0.780) | 0.647 (0.598-0.762) | 0.645 (0.586-0.774) | 0.613 (0.586-0.774) |
| AIC* | 297.474 | 312.430 | 303.724 | 320.712 |
| Likelihood ratio chi-square‡ | 25.29 | 10.33 | 5.79 | 2.05 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| C-index† (95% CI) | 0.636 (0.592-0.768) | 0.619 (0.594-0.766) | 0.562 (0.582-0.778) | 0.507 (0.588-0.772) |
| AIC* | 271.584 | 272.538 | 277.735 | 280.086 |
| Likelihood ratio chi-square‡ | 9.31 | 8.36 | 4.60 | 0.81 |
*The AIC provided a relative measure of the quality of the model; lower values indicate a better model fitting. AIC differences of < 2 designate no progress in fit, differences of > 2 but < 10 exhibited increasing progress in fit, and differences of more than 10 indicate significant improvement in model fit.
†The C-index provided a measure of the model’s predictive ability, defined as the likelihood of concordance between observed and predicted survival. The C-index corresponds to the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. C-index values of 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 suggest that the model discriminates between short and long survival periods in a random, permissible, or ideal manner, respectively.
‡A higher likelihood ratio chi-square score indicates better homogeneity.