Prognostic Value of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Biomarkers that reflect prognosis and cellular immunity in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are a prerequisite for improving individualized treatment that limits the intensity and morbidity of conventional treatment and may be useful in the introduction of new immunotherapy regimens.OBJECTIVE To determine if specific classes of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in pretreatment biopsy specimens have prognostic value for outcomes in a large training and validation cohort of patients with HNSCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this prospective, epidemiologic study with a median follow-up of 47.5 months, in 464 previously untreated patients with available tissue for construction of tissue microarray, HNSCC disease sites included oral cavity ( 228), oropharynx (147), larynx (74), and hypopharynx (15). The training cohort consisted of 241 patients and the validation cohort consisted of 223 patients. Overall tumor stage was I (55), II (69), III (71), or IV (269). Patients were enrolled between November 2008 and October 2014. Data were analyzed between October 2018 and April 2019.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Semiquantitative levels of CD4, CD8, and FoxP3 lymphocytes were assessed by immunohistologic analysis and correlations with clinical prognostic factors, initial treatment modality, and overall survival (OS) and disease-specific (DSS) survival were determined. A principal component analysis was performed to generate a combined TIL-weighted sum score (TIL ws ). RESULTSOf the 464 participants, 135 (29%) were women; mean (SD) age was 61.1 (11.8) years. Higher CD8 counts were associated with improved OS in both training and validation sets (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98; and HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99, respectively). Higher TIL ws levels were associated with improved OS and DSS in both the training set (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96; and HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99, respectively) and validation set (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; and HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99, respectively). A multivariable Cox model controlling for batch, age, clinical stage, disease site, comorbidities, HPV status, and smoking, showed that higher TIL ws levels were associated with improved OS and DSS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97; and HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98, respectively). When grouped by treatment (surgery vs chemoradiation) and tested for interaction, treatment was found to be an effect modifier for CD4 levels and OS. Low CD4 levels were showed greater association with decreased survival in the chemoradiation cohort than the surgery cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe findings from this large cohort study suggest that levels of TILs are an independent prognostic factor in patients with HNSCC. Subsets of TILs and combined TIL scores may be clinically useful predictive and prognostic factors.

Lymphocytic infiltration in stage II microsatellite stable colorectal tumors: A retrospective prognosis biomarker analysis

“…This result has been replicated in more than 600 tumor samples from 2 countries. A similar association has been previously reported in tumors other than CRC, including breast [23], ovarian [24], esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [25], head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [26], lung [27] or gastric cancer [28], among others.…”

A role for the immune system in advanced laryngeal cancer

“…In advanced LSCC we highlighted and confirmed the role of TILs as an independent prognostic factor 8 , 9 . Recently, different studies underline the role of the immune cell infiltrates in head and neck cancer.…”

Biological Determinants of Chemo-Radiotherapy Response in HPV-Negative Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicentric External Validation

“…Careful inspection of the TCGA data revealed increased CD8 + T-cell gene expression signature scores in the HPV-positive oropharyngeal that drive the good prognosis association. A pattern observed in other studies as well (56,77,(121)(122)(123)(124). Mandal et al adjusted for HPVassociated outcome differences, which does not account for a possible interaction between the two variables (56).…”