Genomic modeling study demonstrates an 18-gene tumor microenvironment signature predicts survival in non-small cell lung cancer, indicating utility for prognostic risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: The tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a crucial role in tumorigenesis and tumor progression. This study aimed to identify novel TME-related biomarkers and develop a prognostic model for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: After downloading and preprocessing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data portal and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets, we classified the molecular subtypes using the "NMF" R package. We performed survival analysis and quantified immune scores between clusters. A Cox proportional hazards model was then constructed, and its formula was produced. We assessed model performance and clinical utility. A prediction nomogram was also constructed and validated. Additionally, we explored the potential regulatory mechanisms of our TME gene signature using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). RESULTS: From data processing and univariate Cox regression analysis, 57 TME-related prognostic genes were identified, and two significantly distinct clusters were established. Using Cox regression and Lasso regression, an 18-gene TME-related prognostic model was developed. Patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on the risk score, with survival analysis showing that the low-risk group had significantly better outcomes than the high-risk group (P < 0.01). ROC curve analysis demonstrated strong predictive performance, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year AUC values ranging from 0.654 to 0.702 across different cohorts. The model accurately predicted survival outcomes across subgroups with varying clinical features, and its predictive accuracy was validated through a nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a prognostic model based on TME-related genes in NSCLC. Our 18-gene TME signature can effectively predict the prognosis of NSCLC with high accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: