| Literature DB >> 35083162 |
Zhenxian Xiang1,2,3,4, Qiuming He1,2,3,4, Li Huang5, Bin Xiong1,2,3,4, Qingming Xiang3,4,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor budding (TB) is emerging as a prognostic factor in multiple cancers. Likewise, the stemness of cancer cells also plays a vital role in cancer progression. However, nearly no research has focused on the interaction of TB and tumor stemness in cancer.Entities:
Keywords: ALDH1A1; CD24; CD44; CSCs; EMT; breast cancer; prognosis; tumor budding
Year: 2022 PMID: 35083162 PMCID: PMC8784696 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.818869
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Basal characteristics of 229 patients with invasive BC.
| Characteristics | Total cohort | Without recurrence | With recurrence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
|
| 229 | 143 (100%) | 86 (100%) |
|
| |||
| ≤50 | 142 (62%) | 89 (62%) | 53 (62%) |
| >50 | 87 (38%) | 54 (38%) | 33 (38%) |
|
| |||
| Premenopausal | 129 (56%) | 86 (60%) | 43 (50%) |
| Postmenopausal | 100 (44%) | 57 (40%) | 43 (50%) |
|
| |||
| T1 | 30 (13%) | 27 (19%) | 3 (3%) |
| T2 | 156 (68%) | 100 (70%) | 56 (65%) |
| T3 | 43 (19%) | 16 (11%) | 27 (31%) |
|
| |||
| N (−) | 102 (45%) | 86 (60%) | 16 (19%) |
| N (+) | 127 (55%) | 57 (40%) | 70 (81%) |
|
| |||
| Well | 37 (16%) | 34 (24%) | 3 (3%) |
| Moderate | 134 (59%) | 97 (68%) | 37 (43%) |
| Poor | 58 (25%) | 12 (8%) | 46 (53%) |
|
| |||
| Negative | 127 (55%) | 65 (45%) | 62 (72%) |
| Positive | 102 (45%) | 78 (55%) | 24 (28%) |
|
| |||
| Negative | 127 (55%) | 70 (49%) | 57 (66%) |
| Positive | 102 (45%) | 73 (51%) | 29 (34%) |
|
| |||
| I | 14 (6%) | 14 (10%) | 0 (0%) |
| II | 147 (64%) | 107 (75%) | 40 (47%) |
| III | 68 (30%) | 22 (15%) | 46 (53%) |
|
| |||
| Negative | 171 (75%) | 115 (80%) | 56 (65%) |
| Positive | 58 (25%) | 28 (20%) | 30 (35%) |
|
| |||
| CMT | 101 (44%) | 51 (36%) | 50 (58%) |
| No treatment | 28 (56%) | 92 (64%) | 36 (42%) |
|
| |||
| CMT | 141 (62%) | 97 (68%) | 44 (51%) |
| CMT+R | 49 (21%) | 20 (14%) | 29 (34%) |
| No treatment | 39 (17%) | 26 (18%) | 13 (15%) |
|
| |||
| Low-grade TB | 150 | 109 | 41 |
| High-grade TB | 79 | 34 | 45 |
LNM, lymph node metastasis; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; TNM, tumor node metastasis; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; CMT, chemotherapy; CMT+R, chemotherapy + radiotherapy.
Figure 1Flow chart of the study design.
Figure 2Budding quantification and its relationship with clinical outcome. (A) Distribution of tumor buds in 229 cases of BC. (B) TB score in recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. (C) Analyses to define the optimal cutoff value for TB. (D) TB grade in recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. (E, F) Representative images of low-grade TB (E) and high-grade TB (F). Red arrows point to tumor buds. (G) The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows the DFS of BC after stratification by TB grade. (H–J) The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows DFS of different BC subtypes after stratification by TB. (K) The forest map shows the prognostic significance of TB in different subgroups. ** p < 0.01.
The relationship between TB, CSC score, and major clinicopathological characteristics of BC patients.
| Characteristics | Low-grade TB | High-grade TB |
| Low CSC score | High CSC score |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 150 | 79 | 114 (100%) | 115 (100%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| ≤50 | 101 (67%) | 41 (52%) | 75 (66%) | 67 (58%) | ||
| >50 | 49 (33%) | 38 (48%) |
| 39 (34%) | 48 (42%) | 0.241 |
|
| ||||||
| Premenopausal | 96 (64%) | 33 (42%) | 71 (62%) | 58 (50%) | ||
| Postmenopausal | 54 (36%) | 46 (58%) |
| 43 (38%) | 57 (50%) | 0.071 |
|
| ||||||
| T1 | 23 (15%) | 7 (9%) | 21 (18%) | 9 (8%) | ||
| T2 | 107 (71%) | 49 (62%) | 79 (69%) | 77 (67%) | ||
| T3 | 20 (13%) | 23 (29%) |
| 14 (13%) | 29 (25%) |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 75 (50%) | 27 (34%) | 62 (54%) | 40 (35%) | ||
|
| 75 (50%) | 53 (67%) |
| 52 (46%) | 75 (65%) |
|
|
| ||||||
| Well | 26 (17%) | 11 (14%) | 26 (23%) | 11 (10%) | ||
| Moderate | 93 (62%) | 41 (52%) | 71 (62%) | 63 (55%) | ||
| Poor | 31 (21%) | 27 (34%) | 0.082 | 17 (15%) | 41 (35%) |
|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 81 (54%) | 46 (58%) | 49 (43%) | 78 (68%) | ||
| Positive | 69 (46%) | 33 (42%) | 0.541 | 65 (57%) | 37 (32%) |
|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 77 (51%) | 50 (63%) | 49 (43%) | 78 (68%) | ||
| Positive | 73 (49%) | 29 (37%) | 0.084 | 65 (57%) | 37 (32%) |
|
|
| ||||||
| I | 29 (7%) | 3 (4%) | 21 (18%) | 9 (8%) | ||
| II | 103 (69%) | 44 (56%) | 79 (69%) | 77 (67%) | ||
| III | 36 (24%) | 32 (41%) |
| 14 (12%) | 29 (25%) |
|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 117 (78%) | 54 (68%) | 91 (80%) | 80 (70%) | ||
| Positive | 33 (22%) | 25 (32%) | 0.111 | 23 (20%) | 35 (30%) | 0.074 |
|
| ||||||
| CMT | 62 (41%) | 39 (49%) | 50 (44%) | 51 (44%) | ||
| No treatment | 88 (59%) | 40 (51%) | 0.244 | 64 (56%) | 64 (56%) | 0.941 |
|
| ||||||
| CMT | 95 (63%) | 46 (58%) | 19 (17%) | 68 (59%) | ||
| CMT+R | 28 (19%) | 21 (27%) | 73 (64%) | 30 (26%) | ||
| No treatment | 27 (18%) | 12 (15%) | 0.373 | 22 (19%) | 17 (15%) |
|
LNM, lymph node metastasis; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; TNM, tumor node metastasis; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; CMT, chemotherapy; CMT+R, chemotherapy + radiotherapy. Boldface indicates P < 0.05.
Multivariable analysis for 5-DFS.
| Parameters | HR | 95% CI |
| Parameters | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| T1 | 1.000 | T1 | 1.000 | ||||
| T2 | 3.256 | 1.013–10.462 |
| T2 | 3.170 | 0.987–10.186 | 0.053 |
| T3 | 4.016 | 1.195–13.492 |
| T3 | 3.866 | 1.153–12.969 | 0.029 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Well | 1 | Well | 1 | ||||
| Moderate | 2.252 | 0.684–7.411 | 0.182 | Moderate | 2.18 | 0.665–7.151 | 0.199 |
| Poor | 8.042 | 2.403–26.926 |
| Poor | 7.23 | 2.169–24.102 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 1.000 | Negative | 1.000 | ||||
| Positive | 3.276 | 1.857–5.778 |
| Positive | 3.122 | 1.776-5.488 | 0.001 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Negative | 1.000 | Negative | 1.000 | ||||
| Positive | 1.725 | 1.083–2.748 |
| Positive | 1.725 | 1.083-2.748 |
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Low grade | 1.000 | Type I. v | 0.316 | 0.164-0.608 |
| ||
| High grade | 1.871 | 1.197–2.924 |
| Type IV vs. type II and III | 1.776 | 1.085-2.907 |
|
LNM, Lymph node metastasis; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2; TB, tumor budding; CSCs, cancer stem cells. Boldface indicates P < 0.05.
Figure 3Associations of TB with EMT and tumor stemness. (A) Representative IHC images of E-cadherin and its associations with TB grade. (B) Representative IHC images of vimentin and its associations with TB grade. (C) Heatmap showed CSC marker expression in 229 cases of BC patients. (D) Representative IHC images of CD44 and its associations with TB grade. (E) Representative IHC images of ALDH1A1 and its associations with TB grade. (F) Representative IHC images of CD24 and its associations with TB grade. (G) Association between TB grade and CSC score. (H) The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows disease-free survival of BC after stratification by CSC score. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4The model based on TB-CSC type for predicting tumor recurrence in patients with BC. (A) The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows DFS after stratification by TB-CSC type. (B) The nomogram based on TB-CSC type predicting DFS probability of BC patients. (C) Calibration plot showing favorable agreement between the predicted rate (red line) and actual rate (green line). (D) The ROC curve shows a better prognostic value of nomogram on recurrence than TNM staging system.