4.7 Article

Clinical significance and inflammatory landscapes of a novel recurrence-associated immune signature in early-stage lung adenocarcinoma

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 479, 期 -, 页码 31-41

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.03.016

关键词

Early-stage lung adenocarcinoma; Recurrence; Immune signature; EGFR mutation; Immune checkpoints

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81802299, 81502514]
  2. CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences [2016-I2M-1-001, 2017-I2M-1-005]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [3332018070]
  4. National Key Basic Research Development Plan [2018YFC1312105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of early-stage lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) has increased alongside increased implementation of lung cancer screenings. Robust discrimination criteria are urgently needed to identify those patients who might benefit from additional systemic therapy. Here, to develop a reliable, individualized immune gene-set-based signature to predict recurrence in early-stage LUAD, a novel recurrence-associated immune signature was identified using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model, and a stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression model with a training set comprised of 338 early-stage LUAD samples form TCGA, which was subsequently validated in 226 cases from GSE31210 and an independent set of 68 frozen tumor samples with qRT-PCR data. This new classification system remained strongly predictive of prognoses across clinical subgroups and mutation status. Further analysis revealed that samples from high-risk cases were characterized by active interferon signal transduction, distinctive immune cell proportions and immune checkpoint profiles. Moreover, the signature was identified as an independent prognostic factor. In conclusion, the signature is highly predictive of recurrence in patients with early-stage LUAD, which may serve as a powerful prognostic tool to further optimize immunotherapies for cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据