| Literature DB >> 35279104 |
Chen Xu1, Hui Zeng2, Junli Fan1, Wenjie Huang1, Xiaosi Yu1, Shiqi Li1, Fubing Wang3,4, Xinghua Long5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the improved knowledge of disease biology and the introduction of immune checkpoints, there has been significant progress in treating renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients. Individual treatment will differ according to risk stratification. As the clinical course varies in RCC, it has developed different predictive models for assessing patient's individual risk. However, among other prognostic scores, no transparent preference model was given. MicroRNA as a putative marker shown to have prognostic relevance in RCC, molecular analysis may provide an innovative benefit in the prophetic prediction and individual risk assessment. Therefore, this study aimed to establish a prognostic-related microRNA risk score model of RCC and further explore the relationship between the model and the immune microenvironment, immune infiltration, and immune checkpoints. This practical model has the potential to guide individualized surveillance protocols, patient counseling, and individualized treatment decision for RCC patients and facilitate to find more immunotherapy targets.Entities:
Keywords: Immune microenvironment; Immunotherapy; Prognosis; Renal cell carcinoma; miRNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35279104 PMCID: PMC8918330 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09322-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Difference analysis. A. The heatmap of top 20 miRNAs by difference analysis. B. Volcano plot of miRNAs in RCC patients. Red color indicates up-regulated expression, and green color represents down-regulated expression
Fig. 2Prognostic model construction A. 26 cross-validations in Lambda plot. B. min plot. C. Forest plot of 9 miRNAs. ‘***’ p < 0.001, ‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘*’ p < 0.05
Nine miRNAs in the prognostic model
| Name | Kaplan-Meier analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | HR (95%CI) | ||||
| hsa-mir-105-2 | 0.0003 | 1.42033 | 4.756(1.229-1.641) | 1.97e-06 | *** |
| hsa-mir-122 | 0.0117 | 1.01781 | 0.369(0.927-1.118) | 0.71241 | |
| hsa-mir-1269a | <0.0001 | 1.03488 | 1.386(0.986-1.086) | 0.16589 | |
| hsa-mir-1269b | 0.0006 | 1.09167 | 2.863(1.028-1.159) | 0.00420 | ** |
| hsa-mir-1293 | 0.0008 | 1.09789 | 1.269(0.950-1.268) | 0.20460 | |
| hsa-mir-155 | <0.0001 | 1.07460 | 0.896(0.918-1.258) | 0.37022 | |
| hsa-mir-224 | <0.0001 | 0.96770 | -0.437(0.835-1.121) | 0.66204 | |
| hsa-mir-374c | 0.0400 | 1.11368 | 1.990(1.002-1.238) | 0.04659 | * |
| hsa-mir-6718 | <0.0018 | 1.17308 | 2.761(1.047-1.314) | 0.00575 | ** |
HR Hazard ratio, ‘***’ p<0.001, ‘**’ p<0.01, ‘*’ p<0.05
Fig. 3Survival analysis related to prognostic model. A. Nine-miRNA-based prognostic model to predict 3 and 5-year overall survival (OS) in RCC patients. B-C. Calibration plots of the nine-miRNA-based prognostic model of 3 and 5-year OS. D. ROC curve of 3 and 5-year OS. E. Impact of nine miRNAs on OS in RCC based on KM analysis. F. Impact of a nine-miRNA-based prognostic model in training set on OS in RCC based on KM analysis
Clinicopathological characteristics of RCC patients in training set
| Characteristics (451) | Number (high/low) | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| < 60 | 112/103 | 47.67% | <0.0001 |
| ≥ 60 | 113/123 | 52.33% | <0.0001 |
| Pathological stage | |||
| I–II | 122/171 | 64.97% | 0.0004 |
| III–IV | 98/39 | 30.38% | 0.0026 |
| NA | 5/16 | 4.65% | |
| T stage | |||
| 1-2 | 130/185 | 69.84% | 0.0003 |
| 3-4 | 94/40 | 29.71% | 0.0001 |
| TX | 0/2 | 4.5% | |
| N stage | |||
| 0-1 | 114/77 | 42.35% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 2/1 | 0.67% | |
| NX | 109/147 | 57.76% | |
| NA | 0/1 | 0.22% | |
| M stage | |||
| 0 | 32/97 | 28.6% | <0.0001 |
| 1 | 4/0 | 0.89% | |
| MX | 17/31 | 10.64% | |
| NA | 172/98 | 59.87% | |
| Age | |||
| Male | 155/152 | 67.07% | ns |
| Female | 71/73 | 31.93% | ns |
Fig. 4Correlation with clinicopathological factors. A. Impact of clinicopathological factors on OS in RCC based on KM analysis. B. Univariate analysis of RS and clinicopathological factors. C. Multivariate analysis of RS and clinicopathological factors
Fig. 5miRNA-mRNA network. A. The intersection of the hub gene predicted by the ENCORI website and the difference analysis result of RCC patients. B-C. The network between miRNA and the up-regulated / down-regulated genes in the intersection
Fig. 6Correlation between immune infiltration and risk score. A. The relationship between RS and immune/stromal score. B. Impact of immune/ stromal score on OS in RCC based on KM analysis. C. The relationship between RS and immune infiltration cells. D. Correlation between RS and Neutrophil/ Myeloid dendritic cell
Fig. 7Correlation between Immune checkpoint genes and risk score. A. Impact of five immune checkpoint genes on OS in RCC based on KM analysis. B. The relationship between RS and Immune checkpoint genes
Fig. 8Impact of a nine-miRNA-based prognostic model in the validation set on OS in RCC based on KM analysis