Although the research on the diagnosis and treatment of stage I lung adenocarcinoma has gradually deepened in recent years, no major breakthrough has been made in effective biomarkers and treatment methods. Surgical resection was the preferred treatment for stage I lung adenocarcinoma, but the prognosis remained unresolved, and some patients experienced recurrence and metastasis within a short period of time (Schuchert et al. 2019). Based on clinical features and content of traditional postoperative pathology reports such as tumor size, tissue subtype, and pleural invasion, it is difficult to detect and alert patients with poor prognosis. This study was the first to comprehensively analyze the pathological characteristics of tumor parenchyma and stroma, and aimed to demonstrate and clarify more clinicopathological factors that could be observed by pathologists in HE sections that indicated poor prognosis, so as to enrich and improve the content of traditional lung adenocarcinoma pathology report, and to establish a prognostic model that could be beneficial to clinical risk stratification of patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma.
In this research, we initially included factors from traditional pathology reports such as age, smoking history, surgical resection, clinical stage, tumor size, tissue subtype, and pleural invasion, and newly added factors that could more fully reflect the characteristics of tumor parenchyma and stroma, such as STAS, TSR, sTIL, pTIL, and nuclear grade. After univariate and multivariate Cox analysis, we finally identified independent variables affecting prognosis in stage I lung adenocarcinoma, including age, smoking history, tissue subtype, tumor size, STAS, sTIL, and nuclear grade to construct DFS and OS prognostic models, respectively, in which tumor size has less influence on OS and was excluded from the OS nomogram. The results of the C-index for DFS were (training set 0.84 vs validation set 0.77) and for OS was (training set 0.83 vs validation set 0.78) and ROC analysis with the AUC above 0.8 showed that both DFS and OS models we constructed exhibited better survival prediction ability. We also assessed the calibration curve that showed the predicted probabilities of the model are in good agreement with the actual observed probabilities, which also ensured repeatability. Through DCA measurement, the net benefit of the model incorporating STAS, sTIL, and nuclear levels was significantly higher than traditional reports, indicating the clinical application value of the model. In addition, we established the formula for calculating DFS and OS prognostic risk scores according to the different weights of risk factors, and ROC analysis verified that the score performance of this formula was better than that of clinical single variables. By this prognostic risk score formula, we further divided patients into high and low-risk groups with the median risk score as the cutoff point. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a significant survival difference between the two risk groups. All results were subsequently validated by the validation cohort. The establishment and validation of prognostic models and risk score formulas are of great value for the overall diagnosis and clinical treatment of stage I lung adenocarcinoma. For pathologists, we should pay attention to more factors in the process of diagnosis, so that the routine report can be supplemented and improved. For clinicians, it could more accurately identify intermediate and high-risk groups and be used to guide the need for adjuvant therapy and close clinical follow-up.
The model and formula we established verified that STAS has a larger weight in the prognosis of stage I lung adenocarcinoma. STAS has emerged as a new invasive modality for lung adenocarcinoma and was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free and overall survival (Kadota et al. 2015; Masai et al. 2017; Gutierrez et al. 2022). Adenocarcinomas with the micropapillary subtype could also be observed in breast and ovarian cancers and the high invasiveness of the clustered cancer nest was prone to vascular and lymphatic vessel invasion causing metastasis to lymph nodes and distant organs (Eren et al. 2022; Fauvet et al. 2012). In lung adenocarcinoma, we could observe that the STAS phenomenon often appeared around the cancer tissue containing micropapillary components and solid components, often as a group of micropapillary or solid cancer cells free in the alveolar cavity or growing in the alveolar wall surface. In our analysis, STAS was associated with micropapillary and solid components, consistent with the previous conclusions (Gutierrez et al. 2022; Kadota et al. 2019). In addition, our study found for the first time that interstitial lymphocytic infiltration and peritumoral lymphocytic infiltrating cells were related to STAS. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are critical for prognosis, Kim et al. reported that high levels of sTIL were associated with better DFS and OS in non-small cell lung cancer (Kim et al. 2019). Understanding the prognostic significance and the mechanisms of TIL recruitment into tumors and its relationship with STAS has important implications for the development of effective immunotherapies, which deserve further investigation. Furthermore, STAS was an independent prognostic risk factor for DFS and OS in this study. So far, many studies have investigated the formation mechanism of STAS, scholars support that EMT was involved in the development of STAS. Liu et al. supported that STAS was more easily observed in lung adenocarcinoma with high metastasis-associated protein 1 (MTA1) expression levels. MTA1 was considered to be an EMT-related protein that promoted tumor aggressiveness, stemness, and cisplatin resistance (Liu et al. 2018). Liu et al. reported that STAS was associated with overexpressed Twist and Slug and showed a worse prognosis (Liu et al. 2020). This might provide a potential mechanism for STAS. Our previous study accomplished a comprehensive analysis of a microarray dataset of STAS that reported high expression of CXCL8 in STAS-positive samples, but its relationship with EMT was unclear.
Previous studies have shown that CXCL8 promotes tumor progression in lung adenocarcinoma and is a poor prognostic factor (Liu et al. 2018). CXCL8 and its receptors CXCR1/CXCR2 play important roles in tumor development, CXCL8-CXCR1/2 Axis can activate multiple signaling pathways, such as the phosphoinositide-3 kinase/Akt (PI3K/Akt), mitogen-activated protein kinase / extracellular signal-regulated kinase (MAPK /ERK), phospholipase C /protein kinase C(PLC/PKC), Janus kinases/activator of transcription protein 3 (JAK/STAT3) signaling to promote tumor proliferation, tumor cell invasion and migration, maintain stemness, and anti-tumor immunity(Waugh et al. 2008; Cheng et al. 2019; Alassaf et al. 2020; Hu et al. 2020). EMT was thoughted to be one of the mechanisms by which tumor cells acquire invasive and metastatic functions. Previous studies have shown that CXCL8 could interact with Snail to induce EMT to facilitate invasion and metastasis in colon cancer (Hwang et al. 2011). In addition, CXCL8-CXCR2 promoted EMT in oral cancer through the TGF-β signaling pathway (Meng et al. 2020). TGF-β/SMADs signaling was a classical pathway leading to EMT. Smad2 and Snail were EMT-related proteins. The results of this study showed that the CXCL8 expression was correlated with Smad2 and Snail. Furthermore, STAS was more likely to be observed with high expression of CXCL8, Smad2, and Snail. This may provide a relevant mechanism for the formation of STAS, whether CXCL8 interacts with EMT-related pathways to endow STAS with higher invasive and metastatic behavior, which is the direction we need to study further. On the other hand, CXCL8 was also a potential biomarker whose overexpression predicted a poor prognosis (Yang et al. 2020; Jia et al. 2018). Our findings suggested that CXCL8 overexpression was associated with worse DFS and OS. We concluded that CXCL8, Smad2, and Snail were related to the frequency of STAS. CXCL8 might serve as a potential biomarker for STAS formation and poor prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma.
The current study has several limitations. Firstly, the nomogram obtained in this study was only applicable to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Besides, more indicators could be expected to be added in the future for a comprehensive evaluation, such as molecular indicators, etc.
In conclusion, we proposed and validated the nomogram and the prognostic risk score formulas for predicting the DFS and OS of stage I lung adenocarcinoma mainly based on pathological features. As a pathologist, we try our best to give clinical indicators that reflect the prognosis in H&E-stained sections, which is helpful for the clinical evaluation of the prognosis of stage I lung adenocarcinoma. It also can be easily applied in practice and incorporated into routine pathological diagnosis. We risk-scored factors strongly associated with prognosis, enabling efficient patient stratification. Finally, we found that STAS was significantly associated with stronger invasive behavior. In addition, highly expressed CXCL8, Smad2, and Snail were associated with STAS. Most importantly, CXCL8 could serve as a potential biomarker for STAS formation and poor prognosis and a routine immunohistochemical detection index for stage I lung adenocarcinoma, and the mechanism may be related to EMT.