| Literature DB >> 36119064 |
Guan Zhang1,2, Aqing Liu1,2, Yanjie Yang1,2, Ying Xia1,2, Wentao Li1, Yunhe Liu1, Jing Zhang1, Qian Cui1,2, Dong Wang1,2, Xu Liu3, Yongtie Guo3, Huayu Chen3, Jianchun Yu1.
Abstract
Currently, there is no sensitive prognostic biomarker to screen out benefit patients from the non-benefit population in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients (aNSCLCs). The 435 aNSCLCs and 278 normal controls (NCs) were recruited. The percentages and absolute counts (AC) of circulating naïve and memory T lymphocytes of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (Tn/Tm) were measured by flow cytometry. The percentage of CD4+ naïve T (Tn), CD8+ Tn, CD8+ T memory stem cell (Tscm), and CD8+ terminal effector T cell decreased obviously. Still, all AC of Tn/Tm of aNSCLCs was significantly lower compared to NCs. Higher AC and percentage of CD4+ Tn, CD8+ Tn, and CD4+ Tscm showed markedly longer median PFS in aNSCLCs. Statistics demonstrated the AC of CD4+ Tn (≥ 3.7 cells/μL) was an independent protective factor for PFS. The analysis of the prognosis of immunotherapy showed the higher AC and percentage of CD4+ Tn and CD4+ Tscm and higher AC of CD8+ Tscm had significantly longer median PFS and the AC of CD4+ Tn (≥ 5.5 cells/μL) was an independent protective factor for PFS. Moreover, higher AC and percentages of Tn/Tm suggested higher disease control rate and lower progressive disease rate. The AC of Tn/Tm showed more regular patterns of impairment and was more relative with the disease progression than percentages in aNSCLCs. AC had a better predictive value than percentages in Tn/Tm for PFS. Notably, the AC of CD4+ Tn was a potential prognostic biomarker for the PFS and efficacy of immunotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: absolute counts; advanced non-small cell lung cancer; immunotherapy; naïve CD4+ T cell; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36119064 PMCID: PMC9478592 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.996348
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1The flow chart of patient inclusion and analysis procedures in the study.
The baseline characteristics of aNSCLCs.
| Characteristics | N = 435 | (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 67 (39–80) | |
|
| ||
|
| 294 | 67.6 |
|
| 141 | 32.4 |
|
| ||
|
| 103 | 23.7 |
|
| 332 | 76.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 299 | 68.7 |
|
| 136 | 31.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 173 | 39.8 |
|
| 262 | 60.2 |
|
| ||
|
| 362 | 83.2 |
|
| 73 | 16.8 |
|
| ||
|
| 19 | 4.4 |
|
| 416 | 95.6 |
|
| ||
|
| 275 | 63.2 |
|
| 160 | 36.8 |
|
| ||
|
| 390 | 89.7 |
|
| 45 | 10.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 110 | 25.3 |
|
| 325 | 74.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 320 | 73.6 |
|
| 115 | 26.4 |
|
| ||
|
| 184 | 42.3 |
|
| 251 | 57.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 64 | 14.7 |
|
| 371 | 85.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 52 | 12 |
|
| 383 | 88 |
|
| ||
|
| 128 | 29.4 |
|
| 307 | 70.6 |
|
| ||
|
| 49 | 11.3 |
|
| 120 | 27.6 |
|
| 183 | 42.1 |
|
| 83 | 19.1 |
Figure 2Gating strategies. Firstly, we gated lymphocytes identified by CD45 from a leukocyte, then gated CD3+ T cells from a lymphocyte, and gated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from CD3+ T cells. Secondly, we gated Trucont Beads. Thirdly, Tn (CD95-CD45RO-) and Tscm (CD95+CD45RO-) were gated from the CD3+CD4+ CD45RA+CD62L+ T subpopulation. Tcm (CD95+CD45RO+) and Tem (CD95+CD45RO+) subpopulations were gated from CD3+CD4+CD45RA-CD62L+ and CD3+CD4+CD45RA-CD62L- T subsets, respectively. Tte (CD95+CD45RO-) subsets were gated from the CD3+CD4+CD45RA+CD62L- T subpopulation. The gating logic for each subset of CD3+CD8+ T cell is the same as above. Tcm, central memory T cells, Tem, effector memory T cells, Tte, terminal effector T cells.
Figure 3Comparison of Tn/Tm between aNSCLCs and NCs: (A) Comparison of percentages between aNSCLCs and NCs. (B) Comparison of AC between aNSCLCs and NCs. (C) Comparison of percentages between aNSCLCs with stage III and NCs. (D) Comparison of AC between aNSCLCs with stage III and NCs. (E) Comparison of percentages between aNSCLCs with stage IV and NCs. (F) Comparison of AC between aNSCLCs with stage IV and NCs. ns, no significance.
Cells impairment and prognostic cells in aNSCLCs.
| Tn/Tm | Compared with the NCs | Compared with the Stage Ⅲ | PFS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All aNSCLCs | Stage Ⅲ | Stage Ⅳ | Stage Ⅳ | % | AC | |||||
| % | AC | % | AC | % | AC | % | AC | |||
| CD4+ Tn | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | |
| CD4+ Tscm | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ||||
| CD4+ Tcm | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ||||
| CD4+ Tem | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | |||
| CD4+ Tte | ★ | ★ | ||||||||
| CD8+ Tn | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
| CD8+ Tscm | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | |||
| CD8+ Tcm | ★ | ★ | ★ | |||||||
| CD8+ Tem | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ||||||
| CD8+ Tte | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ||||
%: percentage; ★: P< 0.05.
Figure 4Comparison of Tn/Tm between different stages of aNSCLCs and aNSCLCs with or without metastasis: (A) Comparison of percentages between stages III and IV in aNSCLCs. (B) Comparison of AC between stages III and IV in aNSCLCs. (C) Comparison of percentages of aNSCLCs with or without metastasis. (D) Comparison of AC of aNSCLCs with or without metastasis. ns, no significance.
Figure 5Prognostic impact of Tn/Tm on PFS of aNSCLCs: (A) The percentage of CD4+ Tn on the prognosis of PFS. (B) The AC of CD4+ Tn on the prognosis of PFS. (C) The percentage of CD4+ Tscm on the prognosis of PFS. (D) The AC of CD4+ Tscm on the prognosis of PFS. (E) The percentage of CD4+ Tem on the prognosis of PFS. (F) The percentage of CD8+ Tn on the prognosis of PFS. (G) The AC of CD8+ Tn on the prognosis of PFS. (H) The percentage of CD8+ Tscm on the prognosis of PFS.
Univariate analysis on PFS of aNSCLCs.
| Univariate viable | Cutoff-point | Univariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-value | HR | ||
|
| 67 | 0.027 | 0.684 |
|
| 0.009 | 1.682 | |
|
| 0.151 | 0.736 | |
|
| 0.113 | 1.366 | |
|
| 0.119 | 1.307 | |
|
| < 0.001 | 1.964 | |
|
| 0.033 | 4.57 | |
|
| 0.092 | 0.749 | |
|
| 0.955 | 1.015 | |
|
| 0.6 | 1.109 | |
|
| 0.036 | 1.531 | |
|
| 0.445 | 1.14 | |
|
| 0.061 | 0.554 | |
|
| < 0.001 | 3.024 | |
|
| 0.015 | 1.536 | |
|
| 0.03 | 1.479 | |
|
| 2.75 | < 0.001 | 0.311 |
|
| 17.8 | 0.002 | 0.575 |
|
| 30 | 0.087 | 1.346 |
|
| 22 | 0.023 | 1.484 |
|
| 0.85 | 0.186 | 0.785 |
|
| 1 | < 0.001 | 0.444 |
|
| 9 | 0.008 | 0.629 |
|
| 6.65 | 0.316 | 1.213 |
|
| 20.6 | 0.058 | 0.721 |
|
| 6.8 | 0.992 | 0.998 |
|
| 3.7 | < 0.001 | 0.189 |
|
| 62 | < 0.001 | 0.493 |
|
| 115 | 0.362 | 0.856 |
|
| 70.5 | 0.278 | 1.215 |
|
| 2 | 0.63 | 0.921 |
|
| 2 | < 0.001 | 0.431 |
|
| 23 | 0.099 | 0.753 |
|
| 22 | 0.875 | 0.973 |
|
| 58.5 | 0.297 | 0.834 |
|
| 16 | 0.193 | 1.251 |
Figure 6The forest plots of factors affected the PFS of aNSCLCs. HR > 1 represented variable was considered a negative factor; HR< 1 indicated variable was considered a positive factor.
The baseline characteristics of aNSCLCs who received immunotherapy.
| Characteristics | N = 92 | (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 69 (45-80) | |
|
| ||
|
| 64 | 69.6 |
|
| 28 | 30.4 |
|
| ||
|
| 26 | 28.3 |
|
| 66 | 71.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 61 | 66.3 |
|
| 31 | 33.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 35 | 38 |
|
| 57 | 62 |
|
| ||
|
| 67 | 72.8 |
|
| 25 | 27.2 |
|
| ||
|
| 3 | 3.3 |
|
| 89 | 96.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 59 | 64.1 |
|
| 33 | 35.9 |
|
| ||
|
| 86 | 93.5 |
|
| 6 | 6.5 |
|
| ||
|
| 19 | 20.7 |
|
| 73 | 79.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 65 | 70.7 |
|
| 27 | 29.3 |
|
| ||
|
| 39 | 42.4 |
|
| 53 | 57.6 |
|
| ||
|
| 13 | 14.1 |
|
| 79 | 85.9 |
|
| ||
|
| 9 | 9.8 |
|
| 83 | 90.2 |
|
| ||
|
| 26 | 28.3 |
|
| 66 | 71.7 |
|
| ||
|
| 12 | 13 |
|
| 20 | 21.8 |
|
| 48 | 52.2 |
|
| 12 | 13 |
|
| ||
|
| 0 | 0 |
|
| 19 | 20.6 |
|
| 34 | 37 |
|
| 39 | 42.4 |
Figure 7Prognostic impact of the baseline of Tn/Tm on PFS of NSCLCs: (A) Prognostic impact of PR, SD, and PD on PFS. (B) Prognostic impact in percentage of CD4+ Tn on PFS. (C) Prognostic impact in AC of CD4+ Tn on PFS. (D) Prognostic impact in percentage of CD4+ Tscm on PFS. (E) Prognostic impact in AC of CD4+ Tscm on PFS. (F) Prognostic impact in AC of CD8+ Tscm on PFS. NE: not estimable.
Univariate analysis on PFS of aNSCLCs who received immunotherapy.
| Univariate viable | Cutoff-point | P-value | HR |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.8 | < 0.001 | 0.266 |
|
| 17 | 0.018 | 0.442 |
|
| 29.85 | 0.542 | 0.819 |
|
| 22.1 | 0.702 | 0.882 |
|
| 0.35 | 0.214 | 0.659 |
|
| 1.35 | 0.077 | 0.494 |
|
| 9.55 | 0.185 | 0.638 |
|
| 9 | 0.741 | 0.896 |
|
| 21.3 | 0.064 | 0.538 |
|
| 6.55 | 0.923 | 0.969 |
|
| 5.5 | < 0.001 | 0.205 |
|
| 64.5 | 0.002 | 0.313 |
|
| 116.5 | 0.071 | 0.548 |
|
| 80 | 0.388 | 0.754 |
|
| 2 | 0.14 | 0.616 |
|
| 2 | 0.103 | 0.587 |
|
| 23.5 | 0.006 | 0.383 |
|
| 25.5 | 0.715 | 0.887 |
|
| 57 | 0.45 | 0.780 |
|
| 15 | 0.978 | 1.009 |
Figure 8The forest plots of factors affected the PFS of aNSCLCs who received immunotherapy. HR > 1 represented variable was considered a negative factor; HR< 1 indicated variable was considered a positive factor.
Evaluation response of Tn/Tm of aNSCLCs received immunotherapy.
| Cells | Groups | n | Disease control | Progressive Disease | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | PR = 19 | SD = 34 | PD = 39 | ||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
|
| ≥ 1.8% | 71 | 18 (25%) | 31 (44%) | 22 (31%) |
| < 1.8% | 21 | 1 (5%) | 3 (14%) | 17 (81%) | |
|
| ≥ 5.5 cells/μL | 66 | 19 (29%) | 28 (42%) | 19 (29%) |
| < 5.5 cells/μL | 26 | 0 | 6 (23%) | 20 (77%) | |
|
| ≥ 17% | 48 | 10 (21%) | 19 (39.5%) | 19 (39.5%) |
| < 17% | 44 | 9 (20%) | 15 (34%) | 20 (46%) | |
|
| ≥ 64.5 cells/μL | 46 | 14 (30%) | 21 (46%) | 11 (24%) |
| < 64.5 cells/μL | 46 | 5 (11%) | 13 (28%) | 28 (61%) | |
|
| ≥ 29.85% | 46 | 12 (26%) | 19 (41%) | 15 (33%) |
| < 29.85% | 46 | 7 (15%) | 15 (33%) | 24 (52%) | |
|
| ≥ 116.5 cells/μL | 46 | 14 (30%) | 21 (46%) | 11 (24%) |
| < 116.5 cells/μL | 46 | 5 (11%) | 13 (28%) | 28 (61%) | |
|
| ≥ 22.1% | 47 | 11 (23%) | 19 (41%) | 17 (36%) |
| < 22.1% | 45 | 8 (18%) | 15 (33%) | 22 (49%) | |
|
| ≥ 80 cells/μL | 46 | 14 (30%) | 21 (46%) | 11 (24%) |
| < 80 cells/μL | 46 | 5 (11%) | 13 (28%) | 28 (61%) | |
|
| ≥ 0.35% | 56 | 11 (20%) | 21 (38%) | 24 (42%) |
| < 0.35% | 36 | 8 (22%) | 13 (36%) | 15 (42%) | |
|
| ≥ 2 cells/μL | 50 | 11 (22%) | 19 (38%) | 20 (40%) |
| < 2 cells/μL | 42 | 8 (19%) | 15 (36%) | 19 (45%) | |
|
| ≥ 1.35% | 30 | 5 (17%) | 16 (53%) | 9 (30%) |
| < 1.35% | 62 | 14 (23%) | 18 (29%) | 30 (48%) | |
|
| ≥ 2 cells/μL | 59 | 11 (19%) | 30 (51%) | 18 (30%) |
| < 2 cells/μL | 33 | 8 (24%) | 4 (12%) | 21 (64%) | |
|
| ≥ 9.55% | 44 | 8 (18%) | 19 (43%) | 17 (39%) |
| < 9.55% | 48 | 11 (23%) | 15 (31%) | 22 (46%) | |
|
| ≥ 23.5 cells/μL | 43 | 11 (26%) | 23 (53%) | 9 (21%) |
| < 23.5 cells/μL | 49 | 8 (16%) | 11 (23%) | 30 (61%) | |
|
| ≥ 9% | 47 | 10 (21%) | 18 (38%) | 19 (41%) |
| < 9% | 45 | 9 (20%) | 16 (36%) | 20 (44%) | |
|
| ≥ 25.5 cells/μL | 46 | 12 (26%) | 19 (41%) | 15 (33%) |
| < 25.5 cells/μL | 46 | 7 (15%) | 15 (33%) | 24 (52%) | |
|
| ≥ 21.3% | 46 | 10 (22%) | 15 (33%) | 21 (45%) |
| < 21.3% | 46 | 9 (20%) | 19 (41%) | 18 (39%) | |
|
| ≥ 57 cells/μL | 47 | 12 (26%) | 17 (36%) | 18 (38%) |
| < 57 cells/μL | 45 | 7 (15%) | 17 (38%) | 21 (47%) | |
|
| ≥ 6.55% | 46 | 9 (20%) | 20 (44%) | 17 (36%) |
| < 6.55% | 46 | 10 (22%) | 14 (30%) | 22 (48%) | |
|
| ≥ 15 cells/μL | 48 | 11 (23%) | 23 (48%) | 14 (29%) |
| < 15 cells/μL | 44 | 8 (18%) | 11 (25%) | 25 (57%) | |
Frequency for response of treatment options in the AC of CD4+ Tn cell in aNSCLCs.
| Treatment regime | CD4+ Tn cell | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥ 5.5 cells/μL (n = 66) | < 5.5 cells/μL (n = 26) | |||||
| PR | SD | PD | PR | SD | PD | |
|
| 19 | 28 | 19 | 0 | 6 | 20 |
| Immunotherapy alone | 3 | 5 | 5(26%) | 0 | 1(17%) | 4 |
| Immunotherapy conjugate APS | 5 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Immunotherapy conjugate | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Chemotherapy followed by immunotherapy | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| Immunotherapy followed by chemotherapy | 7 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
APS, Astragalus polysaccharide; G-CSF, Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor.