| Literature DB >> 35672787 |
Huan Lin1,2, Xipeng Pan2,3,4,5, Zhengyun Feng5, Lixu Yan6, Junjie Hua7, Yanting Liang2,4, Chu Han2,3,4, Zeyan Xu1,2, Yumeng Wang5, Lin Wu8, Yanfen Cui2,3,4, Xiaomei Huang2,9, Zhenwei Shi2,3,4, Xin Chen10, Xiaobo Chen11, Qingling Zhang6, Changhong Liang12,13, Ke Zhao14,15,16, Zhenhui Li17,18,19,20, Zaiyi Liu21,22,23.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High immune infiltration is associated with favourable prognosis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but an automated workflow for characterizing immune infiltration, with high validity and reliability, remains to be developed.Entities:
Keywords: Immunohistochemistry (IHC); Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); Prognosis prediction; Tumour immune microenvironment; Whole-slide image
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35672787 PMCID: PMC9172185 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-022-03458-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 8.440
Fig. 1Discovery cohort and validation cohort enrolment, exclusions, and incidence of DFS events during follow up. NSCLC non-small-cell lung cancer, DFS disease-free survival, WSI whole slide image
Fig. 2Overall workflow of this study. a Two adjacent sections stained with CD3 and CD8 are digitalized by using the whole-slide scanner. b By using a semi-automated image analysis algorithm, a binary mask of segmented tumour region is created for each WSI. c The CD3+ and CD8+ T-cells in the tumour region are segmented and identified by using a fully-automated algorithm. d The CD3-score and CD8-score (normalized CD3+ and CD8+ cell density, ranging from 0 to 100) are classified into low and high based on the cutoffs determined by maximally selected rank statistics, respectively. e, f, g A three-category I-score and a two-category I-score are established by integrating the classifications of CD3-score and CD8-score based on the discovery dataset. h The validation cohort is used to assess the prognostic value of the I-score
Baseline and clinicopathologic characteristics of the patients with NSCLC in the discovery and validation cohorts
| Discovery cohort | Validation cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at surgery (year, median [IQR]) | 61.0 (54.5–67.0) | 56.0 (49.0–63.0) | < 0.001a |
| < 65 | 95 (65.5%) | 143 (79.4%) | 0.005b |
| ≥ 65 | 50 (34.5%) | 37 (20.6%) | |
| Sex | 0.997b | ||
| Male | 83 (57.2%) | 103 (57.2%) | |
| Female | 62 (42.8%) | 77 (42.8%) | |
| Smoking history | 0.027b | ||
| Never | 101 (69.7%) | 104 (57.8%) | |
| Former/current | 44 (30.3%) | 76 (42.2%) | |
| pT stage | < 0.001b | ||
| T1 | 44 (30.3%) | 132 (73.3%) | |
| T2 | 78 (53.8%) | 33 (18.3%) | |
| T3 | 16 (11.0%) | 7 (3.9%) | |
| T4 | 7 (4.8%) | 8 (4.4%) | |
| pN stage | 0.382b | ||
| N0 | 109 (75.2%) | 132 (73.3%) | |
| N1 | 12 (8.3%) | 23 (12.8%) | |
| N2 | 24 (16.6%) | 25 (13.9%) | |
| TNM stage | 0.815b | ||
| I | 92 (63.4%) | 114 (63.3%) | |
| II | 21 (14.5%) | 30 (16.7%) | |
| III | 32 (22.1%) | 36 (20.0%) | |
| Tumour location | 0.051b | ||
| Upper/middle lobe | 96 (66.2%) | 100 (55.6%) | |
| Lower lobe | 49 (33.8%) | 80 (44.4%) | |
| Histologic type | 0.001c | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 111 (76.6%) | 143 (79.4%) | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 23 (15.9%) | 37 (20.6%) | |
| Other | 11 (7.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Differentiation grade | 0.005b | ||
| Well-moderately differentiated (G1/G2) | 107 (73.8%) | 106 (58.9%) | |
| Poorly-undifferentiated (G3/G4) | 38 (26.2%) | 74 (41.1%) | |
| Type of surgery | 0.046b | ||
| Lobectomy/pneumonectomy | 134 (92.4%) | 175 (97.2%) | |
| Limited resection | 11 (7.6%) | 5 (2.8%) | |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | < 0.001b | ||
| No | 94 (64.8%) | 74 (41.1%) | |
| Yes | 51 (35.2%) | 106 (58.9%) | |
| Follow-up duration (month, median [95% CI]) | 102.7 (89.7–115.6) | 60.0 (57.1–62.8) | < 0.001d |
| No. of events | 72 (49.7%) | 78 (43.3%) | 0.256b |
Data in parentheses are IQR, percentages or 95% confidence intervals
NSCLC non-small-cell lung cancer, IQR interquartile range, CI confidence interval
aP-value is determined by Mann–Whitney U test
bP-values are determined by Pearson Chi-square test
cP-value is determined by Chi-square test with continuity correction
dP-value is determined by the reverse Kaplan–Meier method
Fig. 3Bland–Altman plot for agreement between manual counting and automated counting using our algorithm for quantifying CD3+/CD8+ cells. The Bland–Altman analysis is performed by using 120 tiles randomly selected from the WSIs in the discovery cohort (30 CD3-tiles and 30 CD8-tiles) and the validation cohort (30 CD3-tiles and 30 CD8-tiles). The solid horizontal line in red is the mean of the difference between manual counting and automated counting of positive cells, and the dashed lines in blue are the upper/lower bounds of 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.87–0.94; P < 0.001), which indicates good agreement between manual counting and automated counting. ICC intraclass correlation coefficient. Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier curves of patients stratified by three-category I-score, two-category I-score, and two-category I-score and TNM stage. Compared with a low I-score (three-category), a high I-score is associated with superior DFS in discovery cohort (a P = 0.005) and validation cohort (b P = 0.029), whereas an intermediate I-score is not significantly associated with DFS in both cohorts (P > 0.050). Compared with a low I-score (two-category), a high I-score is associated with significantly superior DFS, in both discovery cohort (c P = 0.004) and validation cohort (d P = 0.001). The two-category I-score and TNM stage are significantly associated with DFS in both discovery cohort (e P < 0.001) and validation cohort (f P < 0.001). The unadjusted HRs, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and P-values are determined by univariable Cox regression models. DFS disease-free survival. HR hazard ratio. Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 5I-score (two-category) distribution across TNM stages and the predictive accuracy of each model in the two cohorts. a A low I-score is associated with advanced TNM stages in both discovery cohort (χ2 = 9.74, P = 0.002) and validation cohort (χ2 = 4.93, P = 0.026). b The iAUC (resampling with 1000 times bootstrapping) for each model is shown as a box-and-whisker plot; median (lines), interquartile range (boxes), 2.5–97.5 percentile (whiskers). iAUC integrated area under the curve
Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses for DFS in the discovery cohort and validation cohort
| Variables | Discovery cohort | Validation cohort | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysisa | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysisa | ||||||
| Unadjusted HRb | Adjusted HRc | Unadjusted HRb | Adjusted HRc | ||||||
| Age at surgery (years) | |||||||||
| ≥ 65 vs. < 65 | 1.13 (0.70–1.82) | 0.624 | 1.00 (0.58–1.73) | 0.991 | |||||
| Sex | |||||||||
| Female vs. male | 0.63 (0.39–1.03) | 0.067 | 0.58 (0.36–0.94) | 0.026 | |||||
| Smoking status | |||||||||
| Former/current vs. never | 1.08 (0.66–1.78) | 0.748 | 1.18 (0.76–1.84) | 0.469 | |||||
| TNM stage | |||||||||
| Stage II vs. stage I | 3.82 (1.99–7.34) | < 0.001 | 2.41 (1.13–5.18) | 0.024 | 2.95 (1.68–5.18) | < 0.001 | 2.87 (1.64–5.06) | < 0.001 | |
| Stage III vs. stage I | 5.69 (3.33–9.73) | < 0.001 | 2.84 (1.33–6.06) | 0.007 | 3.62 (2.15–6.09) | < 0.001 | 3.23 (1.91–5.48) | < 0.001 | |
| Differentiation grade | |||||||||
| G3/G4 vs. G1/G2 | 2.79 (1.72–4.52) | < 0.001 | 1.68 (1.01–2.82) | 0.047 | 1.56 (1.00–2.43) | 0.050 | |||
| Surgical resection | |||||||||
Limited resection vs. lobectomy/pneumonectomy | 1.37 (0.63–2.99) | 0.429 | 1.56 (0.49–4.94) | 0.451 | |||||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | |||||||||
| Yes vs. no | 3.83 (2.38–6.15) | < 0.001 | 1.77 (0.91–3.41) | 0.090 | 2.23 (1.35–3.68) | 0.002 | |||
| I-score (three-category) | |||||||||
| Intermediate vs. low | 0.79 (0.42–1.46) | 0.447 | 1.05 (0.57–1.96) | 0.867 | |||||
| High vs. low | 0.44 (0.25–0.78) | 0.005 | 0.49 (0.26–0.93) | 0.029 | |||||
| I-score (two-category) | |||||||||
| High vs. low | 0.51 (0.32–0.81) | 0.004 | 0.57 (0.36–0.92) | 0.022 | 0.47 (0.30–0.75) | 0.001 | 0.54 (0.33–0.86) | 0.010 | |
Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals
DFS disease-free survival, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
aVariables that reach statistical significance at P < 0.10 in the univariable analysis (sex, TNM stage, differentiation grade, adjuvant chemotherapy, two-category I-score) are included in the multivariable analysis
bThe unadjusted hazard ratios (HR) and P-values are determined by univariable Cox regression analyses
cThe adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and P-values are determined by multivariable Cox regression analyses
Performance metrics for integrated I-score (two-category) models and reference models
| Models | Discovery cohort | Validation cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iAUCa | Harrell’s C-index | AIC | iAUC | Harrell’s C-index | AIC | ||
| TNM stage model b | 0.674 | 0.694 (0.640–0.749) | 615.6 | 0.645 | 0.651 (0.596–0.705) | 742.3 | |
| I-score model | 0.584 | 0.592 (0.532–0.651) | 647.4 | 0.592 | 0.588 (0.533–0.644) | 758.6 | |
| TNM Stage & I-score model b | 0.699 | 0.711 (0.651–0.772) | 613.5 | 0.673 | 0.679 (0.623–0.736) | 736.4 | |
| Clinicopathologic model c | 0.698 | 0.728 (0.676–0.781) | 614.2 | 0.671 | 0.685 (0.627–0.743) | 739.2 | |
| Full model c | 0.717 | 0.742 (0.688–0.795) | 610.9 | 0.684 | 0.695 (0.639–0.751) | 734.8 | |
Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals
iAUC integrated area under the curve, Harrell’s C-index Harrell’s concordance index, AIC Akaike information criterion
aiAUC refers to the integrated area under the ROC curve
b TNM-stage model vs. TNM Stage & I-score model: likelihood ratio P = 0.044
cClinicopathologic model (TMN stage & differentiation grade & adjuvant chemotherapy) vs. Full model: likelihood ratio P = 0.022