| Literature DB >> 35281270 |
Qiang Xu1, Xinghe Yan1, Zhezhu Han1, Xiuying Jin1, Yongmin Jin1, Honghua Sun1, Junhua Liang1, Songnan Zhang1.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Recent studies have investigated the prognostic value of the tumor microenvironment (TME)-related genes in breast cancer. The purpose of this research is to identify the immune-associated prognostic signature for breast cancer evaluate the probability of their prognostic value and compare the current staging system. In this study, we comprehensively evaluated the infiltration patterns of TME in 1,077 breast cancer patients downloaded from TCGA by applying the ssGSEA method to the transcriptome of these patients. Thus, generated two groups of immune cell infiltration. Based on two groups of low infiltration and high infiltration immune cell groups, 983 common differentially expressed genes were found using the limma algorithm. In addition, studying potential mechanisms, the GSEA method was used to indicate some pathways with remarkable enrichment in two clusters of immune cell infiltration. Finally, the seven immune-associated hub genes with survival as prognostic signatures were identified by using univariate Cox, survival, and LASSO analyses and constructed a TME score. The prognostic value of the TME score was self-validated in the TCGA cohort and further validated in an external independent set from METABRIC and GEO database by time-dependent survival receiver operation. Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinicopathological characteristics indicated that the TME score was an independent prognostic factor. In conclusion, the proposed TME score model should be considered as a prognostic factor, similar to the current TNM stage, and the seven immune-related genes can be a valuable potential biomarker for breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: TME score; breast cancer; gene; prognostic; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35281270 PMCID: PMC8905140 DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.823911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Biosci ISSN: 2296-889X
FIGURE 1(A) Unsupervised clustering of TME cells for 1,077 patients in the TCGA cohort. (B) Kaplan-Meier curves for OS of 1,077 patients in TCGA cohort (log-rank test, p < 0.001). (C) Expression difference of ESTIMATE score, Immune Score, Stromal Score, and Tumor Purity in two clusters. (D) Principal component analysis (PCA) of two TME clusters modification pattern. (E) The fraction of TME cells in two clusters. The statistical difference of two TME clusters was compared through the Kruskal-Wallis test. *p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001.
FIGURE 2(A) The DEGs visualization was screened by limma. (B) GO enrichment analysis of the DEGs.
FIGURE 3(A) The optimal penalty parameter values were confirmed by 1,000 round cross-validation. (B) Seven hub genes related to prognosis were analyzed by LASSO Cox analysis. (C) Each of seven genes on chromosomes was shown in Circos plots. (D) The contribution made by each of the seven genes to survival differences. (E) Correlation matrix of immune cell infiltration and the expression levels of seven immune-associated genes.
FIGURE 4(A–C) The TME score and Kaplan-Meier curve analysis of seven immune-associated gene signature in TCGA-BRCA and METABRIC cohort. (D–F) ROC curves measuring the predictive values of the TME score at 1, 2, and 3 years in overall, training and external validation set, respectively.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinicopathological characteristics and TMEscore with overall survival in TCGA BRCA cohort.
| Characteristics | Univariate analysis HR (95% CI) |
| Multivariate analysis HR (95% CI) | Pvalue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMEscore | 2.875 (2.008–4.117) | <0.001 | 2.674 (1.76–4.061) | <0.001 |
| Age | 1.032 (1.02–1.045) | <0.001 | 1.029 (1.015–1.044) | <0.001 |
| Stage | ||||
| Stage II | 1.59 (0.92–2.749) | 0.097 | 1.29 (0.525–3.166) | 0.579 |
| Stage III | 3.033 (1.71–5.38) | <0.001 | 2.032 (0.578–7.144) | 0.269 |
| Stage IV | 13.035 (6.426–26.438) | <0.001 | 5.306 (1.333–21.123) | 0.018 |
| pathologic_T | ||||
| T2 | 1.298 (0.863–1.953) | 0.211 | 0.957 (0.497–1.842) | 0.896 |
| T3 | 1.576 (0.935–2.655) | 0.087 | 0.895 (0.378–2.119) | 0.801 |
| T4 | 3.976 (2.142–7.378) | <0.001 | 1.283 (0.483–3.409) | 0.617 |
| pathologic_M | 4.869 (2.906–8.157) | <0.001 | ||
| pathologic_N | ||||
| N1 | 1.851 (1.252–2.735) | 0.002 | 1.42 (0.841–2.398) | 0.19 |
| N2 | 2.743 (1.641–4.585) | <0.001 | 1.812 (0.712–4.609) | 0.212 |
| N3 | 4.106 (2.27–7.428) | <0.001 | 1.778 (0.717–4.41) | 0.214 |
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidential interval.