Immune Cell Infiltrate and Prognosis in Gastric Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To examine and compare the prognostic value of immune cell score (ICS) and Klintrup–Mäkinen (KM) grade in gastric cancer. Methods: Gastric adenocarcinoma tissues from samples of 741 patients surgically treated in two hospitals in Finland were assessed for ICS and KM grade. Cox regression with adjustment for confounders provided hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were performed in intestinal and diffuse type subgroups. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival. Results: High ICS was associated to longer 5-year survival (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.94), compared to low ICS. The difference was significant in intestinal type subgroup (adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36–0.81) but not in diffuse type subgroup (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58–1.46). High KM grade was an independent prognostic factor for longer 5-year overall survival (adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45–0.77) in both intestinal (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.85) and diffuse subgroups (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31–0.86). ICS and KM grade were moderately correlated (ρ = 0.425). When both immune cell score and KM grade were included in the regression analysis, only KM grade remained prognostic. Conclusions: Both ICS and KM grade are prognostic factors in gastric adenocarcinoma, but immunohistochemistry-based ICS might not have additional prognostic value over hematoxylin–eosin-based KM grade.

Construction of a Cuprotosis-Related Gene-Based Model to Improve the Prognostic Evaluation of Patients with Gastric Cancer

“…We found that the number of plasma cells, monocytes, and mast cells resting in GC tissue was significantly less than that in adjacent tissue, while the number of T cell CD4 memory activated macrophage M0, macrophage M1, and macrophage M2 which was significantly higher than that in adjacent tissue. It has been confirmed that GC is related to the regulation of immune infiltration, and previous studies have also shown that immune infiltrating cells are closely related to the occurrence and development of GC [ 15 , 16 ].…”

A nine–consensus–prognostic –gene–based prognostic signature, recognizing the dichotomized subgroups of gastric cancer patients with different clinical outcomes and therapeutic strategies

“… Morihiro et al (2019) also reported that a high protein level of PD-L1 was an independent poor prognostic factor. In the country, Kemi et al (2020) developed the immune cell score (ICS) based on the infiltration of CD3 + lymphocytes and CD8 + lymphocytes, and the 5-years survival was 41.6% in the high ICS group, 31.7% in the intermediate ICS group and 22.2% in the low ICS group. This contradiction might be caused by the different activation statuses of the tumor microenvironment, as Zhou et al (202) and Sato et al (2020) reported that the immune-hot or immune-activated status inhibits tumor progression with a favorable prognosis, while the immune-cold or immunosuppressed group has a poor prognosis.…”

N6-Methyladenosine Related Long Non-Coding RNAs and Immune Cell Infiltration in the Tumor Microenvironment of Gastric Cancer

“…This result is consistent with the conclusion that cluster 1 is low-risk and beneficial for patients. The results of Kemi encourage the use of immune cell score analysis to predict the prognosis of gastric cancer and high score improves the 5-survival rate of GC patients [27]. Research suggested that the immune microenvironments of metastatic tumors was less immunologically active compared to that of primary tumors in gastric cancer patients, which might help establish reliable prognostic signatures due to assessments of stromal and immune components [28].…”