A novel signature based on pyroptosis-related genes for predicting prognosis and treatment response in prostate cancer patients

Xi Xiao; Jianpeng Li; Shun Wan; Mingzhe Wu; Zonglin Li; Junqiang Tian; Jun Mi

doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.1006151

A novel signature based on pyroptosis-related genes for predicting prognosis and treatment response in prostate cancer patients

Front Genet. 2022 Oct 27:13:1006151. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1006151. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Xi Xiao¹, Jianpeng Li¹, Shun Wan¹, Mingzhe Wu¹, Zonglin Li¹, Junqiang Tian^{1

2}, Jun Mi^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
² Key Laboratory of Gansu Province for Urological Diseases, Lanzhou, China.

Abstract

Background: Pyroptosis is a form of programmed cell death accompanied by specific inflammatory and immune responses, and it is closely related to the occurrence and progression of various cancers. However, the roles of pyroptosis-related genes (PRGs) in the prognosis, treatment response, and tumor microenvironment (TME) of prostate cancer (PCa) remain to be investigated. Methods: The mRNA expression data and clinical information of PCa patients were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas database (TCGA) and the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics website, and the 52 PRGs were obtained from the published papers. The univariate, multivariate, and LASSO Cox regression algorithms were used to obtain prognostic hub PRGs. Meanwhile, qRT-PCR was used to validate the expression of hub genes between PCa lines and normal prostate epithelial cell lines. We then constructed and validated a risk model associated with the patient's disease-free survival (DFS). Finally, the relationships between risk score and clinicopathological characteristics, tumor immune microenvironment, and drug treatment response of PCa were systematically analyzed. Results: A prognostic risk model was constructed with 6 hub PRGs (CHMP4C, GSDMB, NOD2, PLCG1, CYCS, GPX4), and patients were divided into high and low-risk groups by median risk score. The risk score was confirmed to be an independent prognostic factor for PCa in both the training and external validation sets. Patients in the high-risk group had a worse prognosis than those in the low-risk group, and they had more increased somatic mutations, higher immune cell infiltration and higher expression of immune checkpoint-related genes. Moreover, they were more sensitive to cell cycle-related chemotherapeutic drugs and might be more responsive to immunotherapy. Conclusion: In our study, pyroptosis played a significant role in the management of the prognosis and tumor microenvironment of PCa. Meanwhile, the established model might help to develop more effective individual treatment strategies.

Keywords: immune checkpoint inhibitor; prostate cancer; pyroptosis; treatment response; tumor microenvironment.