Integrative analysis demonstrates that an EMT-based model predicts prognosis and immune infiltration in lung squamous cell carcinoma patients.
Background Despite expanding therapeutic options, the prognosis of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors benefit only a subset of patients, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been implicated in invasion, metastasis, treatment resistance, and immune heterogeneity. Therefore, EMT-related biomarkers may offer improved risk stratification. Aim To identify differentially expressed EMT-related genes (DEEMTGs) in LUSC, construct an EMT-based prognostic signature, and evaluate its associations with the tumor microenvironment (TME), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and tissue-level expression patterns. Methods The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) RNA-seq and clinical data were analyzed to obtain DEEMTGs. A prognostic model was built using LASSO and multivariable Cox regression. Survival performance was assessed via Kaplan–Meier, ROC, and Cox analyses. Immune infiltration (CIBERSORT), stromal/immune scores (ESTIMATE), and TMB were compared between risk groups. Exploratory immunohistochemistry (IHC; n = 8) provided orthogonal expression validation. Results A total of 1,651 DEEMTGs were identified, and a six-gene signature (GAB2, ALDOA, PCDHA3, TMEM92, ERH, IRS4) was established. The risk score independently predicted overall survival and corresponded to distinct TME patterns: low-risk tumors showed higher CD8 + T cells, activated CD4 + memory T cells, and naïve B cells, whereas high-risk tumors had more resting CD4 + memory T cells and M0 macrophages. TMB differences were nonsignificant. IHC provided directional protein-level support while acknowledging transcript-protein variability. Conclusion We developed a biologically interpretable EMT-based prognostic model that stratifies survival and reflects immune-microenvironment heterogeneity in LUSC. Larger, stage-balanced and immunotherapy-treated cohorts are needed to further validate its clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: