| Literature DB >> 34650926 |
Jiacheng Huang1,2,3,4,5,6, Lele Zhang1,2,3,4,5,6, Jianxiang Chen7,8,9,10, Dalong Wan1, Lin Zhou1,3,4,5, Shusen Zheng1,3,4,5,6, Yiting Qiao1,3,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating immune cells are important components of tumor microenvironment (TME), and their composition reflects the confrontation between host immune system and tumor cells. However, the relationship between the composition of infiltrating immune cells, prognosis, and the applicability of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) needs systematic examination.Entities:
Keywords: CIBERSORT; HCC; PD-L1; immune subtype; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34650926 PMCID: PMC8510566 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.744951
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinical features of the Singapore HCC cohort.
| Characteristic | Variable | n |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ≥60 | 41 |
| <60 | 35 | |
| Gender | Male | 66 |
| Female | 10 | |
| Tumor venous infiltration | Yes | 28 |
| No | 48 | |
| Cirrhosis status | Yes | 41 |
| No | 35 | |
| Tumor size | ≤3cm | 23 |
| 3–5cm | 21 | |
| >5cm | 32 | |
| AJCC stage | I | 46 |
| II | 21 | |
| IIIA | 9 | |
| Child’s grade | A | 56 |
| B | 20 |
Figure 1Subtypes of HCC with different prognosis based on immune cells infiltration. (A) Immune subtypes. (B) Survival curves of different subtypes.
Figure 2Diagnostic model of HCC based on immune cells infiltration. (A) Binominal deviance for different numbers of variables simulated by LASSO-logistic regression model. (B) Coefficients of different numbers of variables in LASSO regression model. (C) Modeling based on TCGA training cohort. (D) Internal test based on TCGA test cohort. (E) External validation based on GSE76427. (F) External validation based on Singapore cohort.
Figure 3Prognostic model of HCC based on immune cells infiltration. (A) Coefficients of different numbers of variables in LASSO regression model. (B) Modeling based on TCGA training cohort. (C) Internal test based on TCGA test cohort. (D) External validation based on GSE76427.
Figure 4(A) Potential pathways related to high pIRS scores based on GSEA. (B) Immune-related pathways among GSEA KEGG analysis.
Figure 5Immune cells related to PD-L1 expression and their prognostic value. (A) Relative PD-L1 expression in different immune subtypes in HCC. (B–F) Linear regression of PD-L1 and M1 macrophages, plasma cells, CD8+ T cells, resting mast cells, and regulatory T cells, respectively. (G–K) Survival curves of M1 macrophages, plasma cells, CD8+ T cells, resting mast cells, and regulatory T cells, respectively.
Figure 6(A) Immunohistochemistry of CD138, CD86, and PD-L1. Case 49: − (CD138), − (CD86), and 0 (PD-L1); Case 52: + (CD138), + (CD86), and 2 (PD-L1); Case 14: − (CD138), − (CD86), and 1 (PD-L1); Case 13: − (CD138), + (CD86), and 2 (PD-L1). (B) Schematic diagram of the balance of immune cells and PD-L1. The red solid line represented that the PD-L1 expression was positively correlated with M1 macrophages, plasma cells, and CD8+ T cells, while the blue dotted line represented that the PD-L1 expression was negatively correlated with resting mast cells and regulatory T cells.
Chi-square test for evaluation of the relationship of CD86 and PD-L1 based on immunohistochemistry staining.
| CD86 expression | PD-L1 expression | χ2 | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | |||
| Negative | 28 | 14 | 5.182 | 0.023 |
| Positive | 10 | 16 | ||
Figure 7Relationship between the mRNA level of M1 related cytokines and PD-L1 expression. (A) TNF, (B) IL1A, (C) IL1B, (D) IL6, (E) IL12A, (F) IL12B, (G) IL15, (H) IL18.