| Literature DB >> 35911687 |
Xiao-Yang Gong1, Hai-Bin Chen1, Li-Qing Zhang1, Dong-Sheng Chen2, Wang Li1, Dong-Hui Chen1, Jin Xu1, Han Zhou1, Le-le Zhao2, Yun-Jie Song2, Ming-Zhe Xiao2, Wang-Long Deng2, Chuang Qi2, Xue-Rong Wang3, Xi Chen1.
Abstract
Background: Patients with early-stage laryngeal cancer, even stage T1-2N0, are at considerable risk of recurrence and death. The genetic and immunologic characteristics of recurrent laryngeal cancer remain unclear.Entities:
Keywords: NOTCH1 mutation; T1-2N0 laryngeal cancer; molecular alterations; relapse; tumor immunity; tumor mutation burden
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35911687 PMCID: PMC9336464 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.920253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Flowchart of patient selection.
The clinicopathological features of the patients.
| Characteristic | Non-relapsed, n=19 | Relapsed, n=23 | p-value1 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| >0.9 | ||
| Female | 2 (11%) | 3 (13%) | |
| Male | 17 (89%) | 20 (87%) | |
|
| 0.3 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 65 (9) | 68 (12) | |
|
| 0.5 | ||
| Non-smoker | 10 (53%) | 10 (43%) | |
| Light smoker | 4 (21%) | 9 (39%) | |
| Heavy smoker | 5 (26%) | 4 (17%) | |
|
| 0.8 | ||
| Never | 10 (53%) | 13 (57%) | |
| Former | 4 (21%) | 3 (13%) | |
| Always | 5 (26%) | 7 (30%) | |
|
| 0.11 | ||
| T1 | 18 (95%) | 17 (74%) | |
| T2 | 1 (5.3%) | 6 (26%) | |
|
| 9 (47%) | 15 (65%) | 0.2 |
|
| 4.69 (3.12, 5.86) | 7.03 (4.30, 7.81) | 0.045 |
Figure 2Overall level mutation analysis of laryngeal cancer patients. (A) No. of genomic alterations in each patient. (B) A waterfall map of the genetic mutations in the study, light gray color in the genetic mutation waterfall diagram correspond to the wild type or absence of any mutation.
Figure 3Mutation analysis of laryngeal cancer patients. (A) Pairwise mutual exclusivity and co-occurrence analysis in the cohort. (B) Separate group analyses showed no significant difference in the proportion of mutation types between the two defined group.
Figure 4TMB and individual gene mutations were associated with clinicalsurvival outcomes. (A) TMB values in the relapsed group and the non-relapsed group. (B) Higher TMB (top 25%) was associated with poorer RFS outcomes. (C) Rate of individual somatic mutated genes between the two groups. (D) K-M survival curve on LRB1P mutation with RFS. (E) K-M survival curve on LRB1P mutation with OS. (F) K-M survival curve on NOTCH1mutation with RFS. (G) K-M survival curve on NOTCH1 mutation with OS.(H)TMB values in the NOTCH1 mutation group and wild-type group. (I) K-M survival curve on NOTCH1 mutation with PFI in TCGA. (J) K-M survival curve on NOTCH1 mutation with DSS in TCGA. (K) K-M survival curve on NOTCH1 mutation with OS in TCGA.
The results of univariate and multivariate analysis on NOTCH1 mutation with RFS.
| Univariable | Multivariable | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | HR1 | 95% CI1 | p-value | HR1 | 95% CI1 | p-value | |
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | — | — | — | — | |||
| Male | 0.94 | 0.28, 3.20 | >0.9 | ||||
| Age_group | |||||||
| < 65 | — | — | — | — | |||
| >= 65 | 1.82 | 0.74, 4.43 | 0.2 | ||||
| Somking_history | |||||||
| Non_smoker | — | — | — | — | |||
| Light_smoker | 2.00 | 0.81, 4.96 | 0.13 | 1.59 | 0.59, 4.32 | 0.4 | |
| Heavy_smoker | 0.85 | 0.27, 2.71 | 0.8 | 0.48 | 0.12, 1.90 | 0.3 | |
| Drinking_history | |||||||
| Never | — | — | — | — | |||
| Former | 0.60 | 0.17, 2.11 | 0.4 | ||||
| Always | 1.02 | 0.41, 2.56 | >0.9 | ||||
| Stage | |||||||
| T1 | — | — | — | — | |||
| T2 | 2.21 | 0.87, 5.65 | 0.10 | 1.94 | 0.67, 5.65 | 0.2 | |
| Anterior_commissure_involvement | |||||||
| No | — | — | — | — | |||
| Yes | 1.48 | 0.63, 3.50 | 0.4 | ||||
| LRP1B | |||||||
| WT | — | — | — | — | |||
| MU | 1.53 | 0.62, 3.75 | 0.4 | ||||
| NOTCH1 | |||||||
| WT | — | — | — | — | |||
| MU | 4.44 | 1.59, 12.4 | 0.004 | 4.18 | 1.20, 14.6 | 0.025 | |
| TMB_level | |||||||
| TMB-L | — | — | — | — | |||
| TMB-H | 2.40 | 1.05, 5.48 | 0.038 | 2.85 | 1.16, 7.01 | 0.023 | |
1HR = Hazard Ratio, CI = Confidence Interval.
Figure 5Identification of DEGs based on NOTCH1 mutation and immune cell profile analyses. (A, B) DEGs were identified and shown by volcano plot and heatmap. (C, D) The immune cell composition assessment shown as heatmap and the scores of discrepant immune cell subsets in two groups.
Figure 6Biological signatures in the NOTCH1 mutation group. (A, B) The T cell markers score assessment shown as heatmap and the statistic analysis in two groups. (C, D) The B cell markers score assessment shown as heatmap and the statistic analysis in two groups. (D, E) The immune signature score assessment shown as heatmap and the statistic analysis in two groups. (G, H) The total TILs score assessment shown as heatmap and the statistic analysis in two groups.
Figure 7NOTCH1 mutation status was correlated with immune infiltration in the laryngeal cancer datasets from TCGA. (A) TIMER algorithm to estimate the TCGA immune cell infiltration status in laryngeal cancer datasets. (B) The GSEA results revealed prominent enrichment in discrepant signatures.