| Literature DB >> 35844495 |
Yue Zhao1,2,3, Jun Shang4, Jian Gao1,2,5, Han Han1,2,3, Zhendong Gao1,2,3, Yueren Yan1,2,3, Qiang Zheng3,6, Ting Ye1,2,3, Fangqiu Fu1,2,3, Chaoqiang Deng1,2,3, Zelin Ma1,2,3, Yang Zhang1,2,3, Difan Zheng1,2,3, Shanbo Zheng1,2,3, Yuan Li3,6, Zhiwei Cao7, Leming Shi2,4, Haiquan Chen1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: The overall 5-year survival of lung cancer was reported to be only ~15%, with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) as the main pathological subtype. Before developing into invasive stages, LUAD undergoes pre-invasive stages of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), where surgical resection gives an excellent 5-year survival rate. Given the dramatic decline of prognosis from pre-invasive to invasive stages, a deeper understanding of key molecular changes driving the progression of LUAD is highly needed.Entities:
Keywords: imbalance; immune response; lung adenocarcinoma; progression; tumor intrinsic growth potential
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844495 PMCID: PMC9283781 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.921761
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Study design. (A) A total number of 197 tumor samples, including 24 adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), 74 minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), 99 lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), and their paired adjacent normal lung tissue underwent whole-exome sequencing and RNA sequencing. Genomic and transcriptomic data were analyzed and compared among different groups. Samples were further divided into three groups according to their radiological manifestations: 69 pure ground-glass opacities (GGOs), 63 subsolid nodules, and 65 solid nodules. (B) Identification of 12 expressional patterns and development of tumor progressive index based on genomic and transcriptomic data.
Figure 3Immune cell infiltration inferred by CIBERSORT. (A) Prediction of number of CD8+ T cells in the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) cohort. (B) Prediction of number of Tregs in the FUSCC cohort. (C) Prediction of number of Tregs in Dejima’s cohort. (D) Prediction of number of activated and resting natural killer (NK) cells in the FUSCC cohort. (E) Prediction of number of activated and resting NK cells in Dejima’s cohort.
Clinical and pathological characteristics of the study cohort (n = 197).
| Pure GGO (n = 69) | Subsolid (n = 63) | Solid (n = 65) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.025 | |||
| Female | 48 (69.6%) | 41 (65.1%) | 31 (47.7%) | |
| Male | 21 (30.4%) | 22 (34.9%) | 34 (52.3%) | |
| Smoking status | 0.212 | |||
| Former/current | 16 (23.2%) | 15 (23.8%) | 23 (35.4%) | |
| Never | 53 (76.8%) | 48 (76.2%) | 42 (64.6%) | |
| Tumor location | 0.661 | |||
| LUL | 18 (26.1%) | 13 (20.6%) | 11 (16.9%) | |
| LLL | 7 (10.1%) | 6 (9.5%) | 10 (15.4%) | |
| RUL | 26 (37.7%) | 31 (49.2%) | 23 (35.4%) | |
| RML | 7 (10.1%) | 5 (7.9%) | 8 (12.3%) | |
| RLL | 11 (15.9%) | 8 (12.7%) | 13 (20.0%) | |
| Pathology | <0.001 | |||
| AIS/MIA | 66 (95.7%) | 31 (49.2%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
| LUAD | 3 (4.3%) | 32 (50.8%) | 64 (98.5%) | |
| Predominant subtype | ||||
| Lepidic | 2 (66.7%) | 9 (28.1%) | 3 (4.7%) | <0.001 |
| Acinar | 1 (33.3%) | 17 (53.1%) | 40 (62.5%) | 0.453 |
| Papillary | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (9.4%) | 10 (15.6%) | 0.004 |
| Micropapillary | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | – |
| Solid | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 9 (14.1%) | 0.067 |
| IMA | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.1%) | 0.123 |
| Presenting subtype | ||||
| Lepidic | 2 (66.7%) | 12 (37.5%) | 6 (9.4%) | 0.001 |
| Acinar | 2 (66.7%) | 24 (75.0%) | 50 (78.1%) | 0.863 |
| Papillary | 0 (0.0%) | 9 (28.1%) | 22 (34.4%) | 0.407 |
| Micropapillary | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.1%) | 6 (9.4%) | 0.472 |
| Solid | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.1%) | 17 (26.6%) | 0.014 |
| IMA | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.1%) | 0.572 |
AIS, adenocarcinoma in situ; GGO, ground-glass opacity; IAD, invasive adenocarcinoma; IMA, invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma; MIA, minimally invasive adenocarcinoma; LLL, left lower lobe; LUL, left upper lobe; RLL, right lower lobe; RML, right middle lobe; RUL, right upper lobe.
Figure 2Comparison of genomic alterations for different pathological and radiological groups. (A) Waterfall plot showing the landscape of genomic alterations in each group. (B) Comparison of mutation frequency in major driver genes among different groups. (C) Comparison of mutation frequency in major tumor suppressor genes among different groups. (D) Comparison of somatic copy number alterations among different pathological groups. (E) Comparison of somatic copy number alterations among different radiological groups. *, p<0.05; **, p<0.01; ***, p<0.001.
Figure 4Identification of 12 expression patterns and prediction of immune cell infiltration. Pattern 1 (nine genes): increase from normal to AIS, from AIS to MIA and from MIA to LUAD; pattern 2 (97 genes): increase from normal to AIS and from MIA to LUAD, no change from AIS to MIA; pattern 3 (446 genes): increase from normal to AIS alone; pattern 4 (54 genes): no change from normal to AIS, increase from AIS to MIA and from MIA to LUAD; pattern 5 (20 genes): increase from AIS to MIA alone; pattern 6 (309 genes): increase from MIA to LUAD alone; pattern 7 (three genes): decrease from normal to AIS, from AIS to MIA and from MIA to LUAD; pattern 8 (175 genes): decrease from normal to AIS and from MIA to LUAD, no change from AIS to MIA; pattern 9 (771 genes): decrease from normal to AIS alone; pattern 10 (six genes): no change from normal to AIS, decrease from AIS to MIA and from MIA to LUAD; pattern 11 (three genes): decrease from AIS to MIA alone; pattern 12 (130 genes): decrease from MIA to LUAD alone. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) was performed to assess the functional significance for those patterns.
Figure 5Comparison of tumor progressive index for different datasets. (A) Boxplot showing the index increased as tumor progressed in the FUSCC cohort. (B) Boxplot showing the index increased as tumor progressed in Dejima’s cohort. (C) Boxplot showing the difference of tumor progressive index between normal and tumor samples in the TCGA-LUAD cohort.
Figure 6Prognostic value of tumor progressive index for patients with lung adenocarcinoma. (A) Recurrence-free survival for patients with tumor progressive index higher and lower than the median value across the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) cohort. (B) Overall survival for patients with tumor progressive index higher and lower than the median value across the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) cohort. (C) Recurrence-free survival for patients with tumor progressive index higher and lower than the median value across the TCGA-LUAD cohort. (D) Overall survival for patients with tumor progressive index higher and lower than the median value across the TCGA-LUAD cohort. (E) Schematic demonstration showing the imbalance between tumor intrinsic growth potential and immune response against tumor, which can be measured by tumor progressive index, leads to the evolution and progression of lung adenocarcinoma.