| Literature DB >> 36189233 |
Qianyu Wang1, Xiaofei Shen2, Ran An3, Junchao Bai4, Junhua Dong4, Huiyun Cai4, Hongyan Zhu3, Wentao Zhong4,5, Wenliang Chen1,6, Aijun Liu3, Junfeng Du4,5,7.
Abstract
Background: Tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs) are crucial in promoting and maintaining positive anti-tumor immune responses. The tumor stroma has a powerful immunosuppressive function that could exclude tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from the tumor beds and lead to a "cold" phenotype. TLSs and tumor stroma percentage (TSP) are significantly associated with the prognosis of patients with certain cancers. However, the exact roles of TLSs and TSP and their intrinsic relationship are still largely unknown in colorectal cancer (CRC).Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; nomogram; prognosis; tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS); tumor immune microenvironment; tumor stroma percentage
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36189233 PMCID: PMC9524924 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.962056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Hematoxylin and eosin-stained (H&E) sections of tumor stroma percentage and TLS. (A) High TSP (>50%). (B) Low TSP (≤50%). Germinal centers (GCs) were confirmed to contain strictly confined regions of CD21 follicular dendritic cells in a field of larger CD23 and Ki67 B cells (CD20) surrounded by PNAd vessels (C–I). Peri-tumor region was surrounded in red while intra-tumor region was surrounded in brown (J). In-TLS (K) and P-TLS (L) are highlighted in blue and red, respectively.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of nmCRC patients.
| Characteristics | Training set n (%) | External validation set n (%) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.6280 | ||
| Male | 65 (57.0) | 37 (61.7) | |
| Female | 49 (43.0) | 23 (38.3) | |
|
| 0.0774 | ||
| >60 | 41 (36.0) | 30 (50.0) | |
| ≤60 | 73 (64.0) | 30 (50.0) | |
|
| 0.6240 | ||
| Rectum | 75 (65.8) | 35 (58.3) | |
| Left colon | 19 (16.7) | 12 (20.0) | |
| Right colon | 20 (17.5) | 13 (21.7) | |
|
| >0.9999 | ||
| YES | 47 (41.2) | 25 (41.7) | |
| NO | 67 (58.8) | 35 (58.3) | |
|
| 0.8425 | ||
| YES | 23 (20.2) | 11 (18.3) | |
| NO | 91 (79.8) | 49 (81.7) | |
|
| 0.6774 | ||
| YES | 19 (16.7) | 12 (20.0) | |
| NO | 95 (83.3) | 48 (80.0) | |
|
| 0.8991 | ||
| T1 | 7 (6.1) | 5 (8.3) | |
| T2 | 15 (13.2) | 7 (11.7) | |
| T3 | 83 (72.8) | 42 (70.0) | |
| T4 | 9 (7.9) | 6 (10.0) | |
|
| 0.7808 | ||
| N0 | 67 (58.8) | 35 (58.3) | |
| N1 | 30 (26.3) | 18 (30.0) | |
| N2 | 17 (14.9) | 7 (11.7) | |
|
| 0.9063 | ||
| I | 22 (19.3) | 10 (16.7) | |
| II | 45 (39.5) | 25 (41.7) | |
| III | 47 (41.2) | 25 (41.7) | |
|
| 0.5119 | ||
| G1 | 27 (23.7) | 11 (18.3) | |
| G2 | 74 (64.9) | 39 (65.0) | |
| G3 | 13 (11.4) | 10 (16.7) | |
|
| 0.8247 | ||
| dMMR | 17 (14.9) | 8 (13.3) | |
| pMMR | 97 (85.1) | 52 (86.7) | |
|
| >0.9999 | ||
| H-TSP | 47 (41.2) | 24 (40.0) | |
| L-TSP | 67 (58.8) | 36 (60.0) | |
|
| 0.1535 | 0.1555 | 0.7266 |
|
| 0.5476 | ||
| E-TLS | 25 (22.1) | 9 (15.3) | |
| PFL-TLS | 51 (45.1) | 28 (47.5) | |
| SFL-TLS | 37 (32.7) | 22 (37.3) |
nmCRC, non-metastatic colorectal cancer; MMR, mismatch repair; P-TLS, peritumoral tertiary lymphoid structure; E-TLS, early -TLS; TSP, PFL-TLS, primary follicle-like -TLS; SFL-TLS, secondary follicle-like -TLS; TSP, tumor stroma percentage. *The 8th AJCC TNM staging system
Figure 2TLS in nmCRC. (A) The mucosal TLSs were almost squished and elongated or teardrop-shaped; (B, C) the submucosal and basal lamina propria TLSs were usually oval-shape; (D) CD4+ T cells; (E) CD8+ T cells; (F) CD45RO+ lymphocytes; (G) CD11c+DC cells; (H) CD68+ TAMs; (I) FOXP3+ Tregs; (J) NCR1+ NK cells; (K) CD15+ TANs.
Figure 3Distribution of P-TLS density and its relationship with clinical features in the training set. (A) Relationship between P-TLS density and In-TLS density; (B) Distribution of P-TLS density; (C–F) Relationship between P-TLS density and MMR/Vascular invasion/TNM stage/TSP.
Relationship of TSP and TLS with clinicopathological characteristics of nmCRC patients in the training set.
| Characteristics | Training set (n=114) n (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-TLS density (median) | P value | H-TSP | L-TSP | P value | |
|
| 0.6679 | 0.7030 | |||
| Male | 0.1660 (0.0815, 0.2745) | 28 (59.6) | 37 (55.2) | ||
| Female | 0.1340 (0.0905, 0.2410) | 19 (40.4) | 30 (44.8) | ||
|
| 0.1484 | 0.6953 | |||
| >60 | 0.1340 (0.0710, 0.2380) | 18 (38.3) | 23 (34.3) | ||
| ≤60 | 0.1860 (0.0880, 0.2605) | 29 (61.7) | 44 (65.7) | ||
|
| 0.8294 | 0.6595 | |||
| Rectum | 0.1370 (0.0810, 0.2480) | 30 (63.8) | 45 (67.2) | ||
| Left colon | 0.1630 (0.1010, 0.3320) | 7 (14.9) | 12 (17.9) | ||
| Right colon | 0.1680 (0.0980, 0.2480) | 10 (21.3) | 10 (14.9) | ||
|
| 0.2305 |
| |||
| YES | 0.1470 (0.0710, 0.2250) | 29 (61.7) | 18 (26.9) | ||
| NO | 0.1640 (0.0880, 0.3010) | 18 (38.3) | 49 (73.1) | ||
|
| 0.0947 | 0.4868 | |||
| YES | 0.1170 (0.0710, 0.1860) | 11 (23.4) | 12 (17.9) | ||
| NO | 0.1660 (0.0880, 0.2640) | 36 (76.6) | 55 (82.1) | ||
|
|
|
| |||
| YES | 0.0880 (0.0470, 0.1560) | 14 (29.8) | 5 (7.5) | ||
| NO | 0.1710 (0.0900, 0.2640) | 33 (70.2) | 62 (92.5) | ||
|
| 0.2449 |
| |||
| T1 | 0.1420 (0.0700, 0.3010) | 1 (2.1) | 6 (9.0) | ||
| T2 | 0.1260 (0.0870, 0.2310) | 4 (8.5) | 11 (16.4) | ||
| T3 | 0.1700 (0.0950, 0.2640) | 35 (74.5) | 48 (71.6) | ||
| T4 | 0.0880 (0.0450, 0.1795) | 7 (14.9) | 2 (3.0) | ||
|
| 0.4319 |
| |||
| N0 | 0.1640 (0.0880, 0.3010) | 18 (38.3) | 49 (73.1) | ||
| N1 | 0.1420 (0.0673, 0.2308) | 18 (38.3) | 12 (17.9) | ||
| N2 | 0.1510 (0.0650, 0.2205) | 11 (23.4) | 6 (9.0) | ||
|
| 0.2571 |
| |||
| I | 0.1340 (0.0853, 0.2465) | 5 (10.6) | 17 (25.4) | ||
| II | 0.1990 (0.0970, 0.3270) | 13 (27.7) | 32 (47.8) | ||
| III | 0.1470 (0.0710, 0.2250) | 29 (61.7) | 18 (26.9) | ||
|
| 0.2099 | 0.6992 | |||
| G1 | 0.1250 (0.0710, 0.2140) | 12 (25.5) | 15 (22.4) | ||
| G2 | 0.1465 (0.0870, 0.2693) | 31 (66.0) | 43 (64.2) | ||
| G3 | 0.2030 (0.1340, 0.3185) | 4 (8.5) | 9 (13.4) | ||
|
|
| 0.7902 | |||
| dMMR | 0.3530 (0.1520, 0.4325) | 6 (12.8) | 11 (16.4) | ||
| pMMR | 0.1370 (0.0780, 0.2320) | 41 (87.2) | 56 (83.6) | ||
|
|
| - | - | - | |
| H-TSP | 0.1130 (0.0540, 0.2380) | - | - | ||
| L-TSP | 0.1710 (0.1060, 0.2910) | - | - | ||
|
| - | 0.1953 | |||
| Yes | - | 9 (19.1) | 21 (31.3) | ||
| No | - | 38 (80.9) | 46 (68.7) | ||
|
| - | - | 0.0064 | 0.0122 | 0.1568 |
P-TLS, peritumoral tertiary lymphoid structure; In-TLS, intratumoral TLS; TSP, tumor stroma percentage; H-TSP, high TSP; L-TSP, low TSP; nmCRC, non-metastatic colorectal cancer; MMR, mismatch repair. *The 8th AJCC TNM staging system. The bold valuse was considered as statistically significant difference.
Cox proportional hazards regression models for the predictors of RFS and OS in the training set.
| Variables | Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|
| ||||
| Sex | 0.537 (0.235–1.227) | 0.140 | ||
| Location | 1.144 (0.682–1.918) | 0.610 | ||
| Age | 2.020 (0.949–4.298) | 0.068 | ||
| Tumor grade | 1.730 (0.901–3.322) | 0.100 | ||
| MMR | 0.420 (0.100-1.775) | 0.238 | ||
| TNM stage* | 5.219 (2.276–11.965) |
| 4.445 (1.860–10.624) |
|
| Perineural invasion | 0.412 (0.185–0.919) |
| 1.026 (0.406-2.596) | 0.956 |
| Vascular invasion | 0.180 (0.084–0.386) |
| 0.587 (0.249–1.384) | 0.224 |
| P-TLS density | 6.597 (2.882–15.103) |
| 7.117 (2.478–20.437) |
|
| P-TLS maturation stage | 0.508 (0.300–0.860) |
| 1.609 (0.802–3.231) | 0.181 |
| TSP | 0.126 (0.048–0.333) |
| 0.233 (0.080–0.679) |
|
|
| ||||
| Sex | 0.538 (0.236-1.230) | 0.142 | ||
| Location | 1.137 (0.679-1.906) | 0.625 | ||
| Age | 2.027 (0.953-4.315) | 0.067 | ||
| Tumor grade | 1.738 (0.902-3.348) | 0.098 | ||
| MMR | 0.419 (0.099-1.769) | 0.236 | ||
| TNM stage* | 5.222 (2.278–11.975) |
| 4.276 (1.804–10.133) |
|
| Perineural invasion | 0.410 (0.184–0.914) |
| 0.983 (0.370-2.380) | 0.893 |
| Vascular invasion | 0.173 (0.081–0.372) |
| 0.554 (0.238–1.287) | 0.170 |
| P-TLS density | 6.628 (2.893–15.183) |
| 6.905 (2.423–19.678) |
|
| P-TLS maturation stage | 0.505 (0.298–0.855) |
| 1.529 (0.766–3.049) | 0.228 |
| TSP | 0.125 (0.047–0.332) |
| 0.219 (0.075–0.639) |
|
MMR, mismatch repair; P-TLS, peritumoral tertiary lymphoid structure; TSP, tumor stroma percentage; E-TLS, early -TLS; TSP, PFL-TLS, primary follicle-like -TLS; SFL-TLS, secondary follicle-like -TLS; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. *The 8th AJCC TNM staging system. The bold valuse was considered as statistically significant difference.
Figure 4Relationship between the P-TLS and TSP and prognosis of nmCRC in the training set. (A) ROC curve of P-TLS density and patient prognosis. The optimum cut-off is 0.098, and when using this point for segmentation, the sensitivity is 0.805 and the specificity is 0.704. Association of the P-TLS density with RFS (B) and OS (C), and TNM I-II (D, E) and III (F, G) CRC patients. Association of the P-TLS maturation stage with RFS (H) and OS (I). Association of the TSP with RFS (J) and OS (K). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for RFS (L) and OS (M) were performed according to group 1, group 2, and group 3. Group 1: TLShiTSPlo group, group 2: TLShiTSPhi or TLSloTSPlo group, and group 3: the TLSloTSPhi group.
Figure 5The difference between the P-TLS-cellular components and In-TLS-cellular components. (A) CD4+T cells; (B) CD8+T cells; (C) CD20+ B cells; (D) CD45RO+ lymphocytes; (E) FOXP3+Tregs; (F) CD68+TAMs; (G) CD11c+DC cells; (H) CD15+ TANs; (I) NCR1+NK cells.
Figure 6Nomogram predicts RFS and the calibration curves of the Nomogram predict RFS. (A) Nomogram was developed based on three factors: TNM stage, TLS and TSP to predict the probability of RFS at 2- and 5-years. The probabilities might be estimated as the sum of points for each variable as a function of total points. Each component was allocated points by drawing a line upward from the matching values to the ‘point’ line. On the “total points” line, the total sum of points added by each variable was shown. A line was drawn downward to read the associated probability forecasts. The Bootstrap method was used for internal validation, with 1000 repeat samples. Calibration curves of a nomogram to predict RFS at 2- and 5-years in the training set (B, C) and external validation set (D, E).