| Literature DB >> 35751033 |
Ruizheng Sun1,2,3, Yaozhong Liu4, Cheng Lei2, Zhenwei Tang5,6,7,8, Lixia Lu9,10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of wild-type BRAF cutaneous melanoma (WT Bf-CM) patients remains poor due to the lack of therapeutic options. However, few studies have investigated the factors contributing to the prognosis of WT Bf-CM patients.Entities:
Keywords: BRAF; Melanoma; Prognosis; Signature; TCGA; mTOR
Year: 2022 PMID: 35751033 PMCID: PMC9233353 DOI: 10.1186/s12575-022-00170-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Proced Online ISSN: 1480-9222 Impact factor: 7.717
Clinico-pathological characteristics of WT Bf-CM patients
| Groups | Total ( | Training Group ( | Test Group ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 135(64.0%) | 73(68.9%) | 62(59.0%) |
| Female | 76(36.0%) | 33(31.1%) | 43(41.0% |
| Median | 62 | 63.5 | 61 |
| Range | 25 ~ 87 | 30 ~ 87 | 25 ~ 83 |
| ≤ 58 | 90(42.7%) | 42(39.6%) | 48(45.7%) |
| > 58 | 121(57.3%) | 64(60.3%) | 57(54.3%) |
| Primary Tumor | 38(18.0%) | 20(18.9%) | 18(17.10%) |
| Regional Cutaneous Or Subcutaneous Tissue | 38(18.0%) | 21(19.8%) | 17(16.20%) |
| Regional Lymph Node Metastasis | 93(44.1%) | 46(43.4%) | 47(44.80%) |
| Distant Metastasis | 40(19.0%) | 18(17.0%) | 22(21.00%) |
| Unknown | 2(0.9%) | 1(0.9%) | 1(1.00%) |
| 0 | 4(1.9%) | 1(0.9%) | 3(2.90%) |
| I | 35(16.6%) | 13(12.3%) | 22(21.00%) |
| II | 63(29.9%) | 33(31.1%) | 30(28.60%) |
| III | 83(39.3%) | 43(40.6%) | 40(38.10%) |
| IV | 8(3.8%) | 4(3.8%) | 4(3.80%) |
| Unknown | 18(8.5%) | 12(11.3%) | 6(5.70%) |
| Head And Neck | 16(7.6%) | 8(7.5%) | 8(7.60%) |
| Extremities | 108(51.2%) | 55(51.9%) | 53(50.50%) |
| Trunk | 56(26.5%) | 28(26.4%) | 28(26.70%) |
| Others/Unknown | 31(14.7%) | 15(14.2%) | 16(15.20%) |
| < 2 | 54(25.5%) | 26(24.6%) | 28(26.70%) |
| 2 ~ 5 | 60(28.5%) | 36(33.9%) | 24(22.80%) |
| > 5 | 53(25.1%) | 25(23.6%) | 28(26.70%) |
| Unknown | 44(20.9%) | 19(17.9%) | 25(23.80%) |
| Yes | 37(17.5%) | 20(18.9%) | 17(16.20%) |
| No | 155(73.5%) | 75(70.8%) | 80(76.20%) |
| Unknown | 19(9.00%) | 11(10.40%) | 8(7.60%) |
| Yes | 81(38.4%) | 36(34.0%) | 45(42.90%) |
| No | 130(61.6%) | 70(66.0%) | 60(57.10%) |
7 RNAs significantly associated with the overall survival
| Gene symbol | Gene ID | Gene_type | Coeffcient | HR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDC73 | ENSG00000134371 | protein coding | 0.318 | 1.374 | 0.015 |
| RP1-69E11.3 | ENSG00000237131 | processed pseudogene | 0.282 | 1.326 | 0.044 |
| RP11-188D8.1 | ENSG00000271427 | lincRNA | 0.882 | 2.416 | 0.013 |
| RP11-116P24.2 | ENSG00000281535 | lincRNA | 0.968 | 2.633 | 0.040 |
| TRIB2 | ENSG00000071575 | protein coding | 0.486 | 1.625 | 0.012 |
| VPS13D | ENSG00000048707 | protein coding | 0.203 | 1.225 | 0.034 |
| CELF3 | ENSG00000159409 | protein coding | 0.199 | 1.220 | 0.108 |
Fig. 1The 7-RNA signature-related risk score and OS prediction of WT Bf-CM patients. KM analysis reveal the OS differences between high and low risk groups and ROC curves assess the predictive performance of the signature-related score in training set (a); in testing set (b) and in the entire set (c). P values were calculated by two-sided log-rank tests, total AUC values were estimated and 95% CI were computed with 2000 stratified bootstrap replicates. d Risk-related plots illustrate the risk scores, survival status of patients and heatmap of 7 RNAs’ expression
Fig. 2Signature’s independence of clinical factors and stratification analysis. Univariable Cox regression and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed, P-value (significance), Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were respectively shown in (a) and (b). KM and ROC analysis of regrouping cohorts based on age and stage were correspondingly demonstrated in (c) and (d)
Fig. 3a Comparison of predictive performances of our 7-RNA signature and other known biomarkers/signatures. b The signature-based nomogram to predict 3-year and 5-year survival probability. c The calibration plot of nomogram predicted and real surviving proportions. d Net reduction interventions and (e) net benefit of decision curve analysis
The ROC results of our signature and other latest biomarkers of SKCM
| Signature | AUC | 95% CI of AUC | Type | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our signature | 0.780 | 0.70–0.87 | LncRNA and mRNA | This study | |
| Four-lncRNA | 0.536 | 0.43–0.64 | LncRNA | 0.000 | [ |
| H19 | 0.550 | 0.44–0.66 | LncRNA | 0.000 | [ |
| SART3 | 0.572 | 0.47–0.68 | Protein coding | 0.002 | [ |
| DCTN1 | 0.528 | 0.46–0.60 | Protein coding | 0.000 | [ |
| STK11 | 0.560 | 0.45–0.67 | Methylation | 0.001 | [ |
| Four-DNA methylation | 0.550 | 0.44–0.66 | Methylation | 0.002 | [ |
aP-value of AUC value comparisons between our signature and other latest biomarkers
Fig. 4a Volcano plot of DEGs between high risk and low risk group. b Protein–protein interactions (PPI) of DEGs in String and core module of PPI with the highest Mcode score. c GOplot of BP enrichment results showing term-clustered gene set and fold changes of genes. d GSEA results of specific enrichment set in MSigDB
Fig. 5a Complex heatmap of 24 sorts of immune cells of WT Bf-CM patients, accompanied by signature-related risk groups, immune infiltration, age, stage, gender and vital status. b Expression of immune markers in high and low risk groups. c Predicted IC50 of various anti-cancer drugs. The p values were calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test