Identification of a 4-lncRNA signature predicting prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter study in China.

Background

Lung cancer is the most common and lethal malignant disease in the world, and approximately about 85% of lung cancer cases are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [ 1 ]. In clinical practice, delayed diagnosis and the lack of effective prognostic biomarkers are two main reasons for poor survival of patients with NSCLC [ 2 , 3 ]. The 5-year survival rate for patients with late-stage lung cancer and those with stage-I lung cancer is 15% and 83%, respectively [ 4 ]. Currently, the treatment strategy and prognosis of lung cancer are mainly determined according to TNM staging system. However, NSCLC patients with the same TNM stage may have a different prognosis [ 2 , 5 , 6 ]. Therefore, an urgent need exists for new biomarkers that can help improve the accuracy of prognosis prediction, which would enhance the quality of life of patients as well as the survival rate [ 7 , 8 ].

With the development and advancement of high-throughput technologies, numerous investigators have proposed using single genes or gene sets (signatures) as biomarkers for tumor diagnosis, prognosis, disease classification, and personalized treatment. Genomic abnormalities such as DNA mutations, copy-number variations, DNA methylation, and gene expression have been investigated for their usefulness in identifying prognostic biomarkers in patients with NSCLC. High-throughput technologies like microarray and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) have enabled simultaneous analysis of hundreds or thousands of genes and their relationships with clinical features, including the survival of patients with cancer, which has led to the discovery of many novel biomarkers (single genes or signatures) for diagnosis, prognosis, and targeted therapy in patients with NSCLC [ 9 , 10 ]. However, only a few molecular biomarkers have been evaluated in clinical practice (mainly as therapeutic targets) [ 11 ] because most of the biomarkers show low accuracy (low sensitivity and/or specificity) [ 12 ] or need to be further confirmed with a larger population in an independent validation study [ 13 ]. Therefore, more reliable biomarkers are still needed to improve diagnosis, prognosis and personalized therapy for NSCLC patients.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) that are expressed at high levels in the body have exhibited superior potential as novel diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers when compared to protein-coding genes, which raises the possibility of identifying more reliable biomarkers for lung cancer [ 14 , 15 ]. LncRNAs are a type of non-coding RNA that are longer than 200 nucleotides [ 16 , 17 ]. Accumulating reports have shown that lncRNAs can participate in numerous biological processes, such as the regulation of epigenetic modification, cell cycle progression, and cell differentiation. Growing evidence shows that numerous lncRNAs are significantly deregulated in various types of cancers and play important roles in tumorigenesis [ 18 – 20 ]. An increasing number of lncRNAs have been shown to be dysregulated and involved in lung cancer tumorigenesis, and to be useful as diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers, or as targets for therapy. For example, the lncRNAs MALAT1 and NEAT1 play important roles in lung cancer cell proliferation, cell cycle progression, and apoptosis, as well as tumor progression and prognosis [ 21 – 25 ]. Inhibitors targeting MALAT1 significantly reduced lung cancer metastasis in a mouse model [ 21 ]. The prognostic role of lncRNA signatures in NSCLS has been investigated in many reports by using the data downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database or The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. However, a lncRNA expression profile for especially identifying prognostic signature in a large cohort of NSCLC patients and multicenter study has not been reported yet. Therefore, the prognostic value and the clinical application potentiality of lncRNA signature in NSCLC patients are necessary to be further systematically explored.

In this study, to our knowledge, we performed the first multicenter retrospective study on the prognosis of total 439 NSCLC patients with a custom lncRNA microarray and qRT-PCR. NSCLC patients from South China were randomly divided into a discovery cohort (194 cases) and a validation cohort (172 cases), and those from Southwest China were used as an independent validation cohort (73 cases). A 4-lncRNA signature was established to predict survival of NSCLC patients in the discovery cohort, and was validated in the validation and independent cohorts.

Methods

Patients and clinical information

A total of 439 NSCLC cases were collected for this study, and these patients underwent radical resection of lung cancer in the Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (n = 366) and Yunnan Cancer Hospital (n = 73) between 2003 and 2008. Matched cancer tissues and adjacent normal tissues were obtained from each patient recruited in Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. The inclusion criteria for our study were: (i) NSCLC was confirmed by pathological diagnosis and reviewed by 2 experienced pathologists, (ii) the patients did not receive any form of anti-tumor therapy before surgery, (iii) the patients did not die within 1 month after surgery, and (iv) the patient’s sample was preserved at − 80 °C immediately after surgery. The samples collected from the 366 patients enrolled at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center were divided randomly into a discovery cohort (n = 194) and a validation cohort (n = 172). Seventy-three patients with NSCLC were recruited from Yunnan Cancer Hospital (using the inclusion criteria described above) and assigned to an independent validation cohort. Overall Survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date of death or last follow-up, and disease-free survival (DFS) was defined as the time from the date of surgery to the date of first recurrence or distant metastasis, death, or the last follow-up. The clinicopathological characteristics of the patients in all three cohorts are shown in Table 1 . This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committees of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center and Yunnan Cancer Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the patients with NSCLC analyzed in the study Parameters Discovery cohort (N = 194) Validation cohort (N = 172) Independent cohort (N = 73) Age (X ± SD) 59.2 ± 10.1 59.8 ± 10.2 57.6 ± 9.1 Gender Male 144 (74.2%) 136 (79.1%) 52 (71.2%) Female 50 (25.8%) 36 (20.9%) 21 (28.8%) TNM stage I 87 (44.8%) 74 (43.0%) 23 (31.5%) II 32 (16.5%) 34 (19.8%) 20 (27.4%) III 75 (38.7%) 64 (37.2%) 30 (41.1%) Histological type ADC 95 (49.0%) 89 (51.7%) 47 (64.4%) SCC 88 (45.3%) 76 (44.2%) 26 (35.6%) ADC/SCC 11 (5.7%) 7 (4.1%) 0 (0.0%) Tumor size (cm) < 5 108 (55.7%) 97 (56.4%) 31 (42.5%) ≥ 5 86 (44.3%) 75 (43.6%) 42 (57.5%) Differentiation Well/moderate 126 (64.9%) 105 (61.0%) 43 (58.9%) Poor 68 (35.1%) 67 (39.0%) 30 (41.1%) Lymphatic metastasis No 105 (54.1%) 81 (47.1%) 45 (61.6%) Yes 89 (45.9%) 91 (52.9%) 28 (38.4%) Follow-up time (month) Median (IQR) 37 (24-62) 36 (23-54%) 22 (14-35) Smoking history No 79 (40.7%) 62 (36.0%) 33 (45.2%) Yes 115 (59.3%) 110 (64.0%) 40 (44.8%) Family cancer history No 161 (83.0%) 151 (87.8%) 71 (97.3%) Yes 33 (17.0%) 21 (12.2%) 2 (2.7%) SD standard deviation, ADC adenocarcinoma, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, IQR inter-quartile range

RNA extraction

RNA was extracted from tumor and normal lung tissues using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and homogenized with a Bullet Blender (Vortex-Genie 2), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, each tissue (100 mg) was mixed with 1 mL TRIzol reagent and homogenized in a Bullet Blender at a 4 °C for 15 min, after which the mixtures were incubated at 25 °C for 5 min. After adding chloroform, the mixtures were violently shaken for 15 s, incubated at room temperature for 10 min, and then centrifuged for 15 min at 4 °C and 14,000 rotations per min. After each supernatant was transferred to a new tube, an equal volume of isopropyl alcohol was added, and the tube contents were mixed. After holding the tubes at room temperature for 10 min, the supernatants were discarded after centrifugation. Each precipitate was washed with 75% alcohol, and then the ethanol was removed after additional centrifugation. After allowing the residual ethanol to evaporate, double-distilled H 2 O was added to dissolve the RNA. Finally, the concentration and quality of each extracted RNA was measured in an ND-1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies), to meet the requirements of the microarray and qRT-PCR experiments.

Quantitative RT-PCR

Total RNA (1 µg) was reverse transcribed using the GoScript™ Reverse Transcription System (Promega), which includes oligo(dT) primers and random primers for the reverse transcription step, and qPCR was performed using GoTaq ® qPCR (Promega) and SYBR Green on a PRISM 7900HT system (Applied Biosystems). Each sample was analyzed in triplicate wells, and reactions without cDNA were included as negative controls. The thermal cycling conditions were as follows: 94 °C at 5 min (for the hot start step), followed by 40 cycles at 94 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 30 s. The sequences of the primers used in this study are shown in Additional file 1 : Table S1. The PCR data were processed by normalizing the median expression value of a given lncRNA to the expression of GAPDH in the same sample. Relative lncRNA-expression levels were quantified using the 2 −ΔΔCt method.

LncRNA microarray fabrication and hybridization

Human lncRNA transcript sequences selected from public lncRNA databases, including the LNCipedia, LncRNAdb, LncRNADisease, and EST databases, were used to design probes for constructing an lncRNA microarray, and 2412 probes were successfully designed. The lncRNA microarray was fabricated in-house and hybridized as described previously [ 26 , 27 ]. RNA samples obtained from the 366 cancer samples and 100 normal lung tissues in the discovery and validation cohorts, were examined with the lncRNA microarray. Briefly, each probe was mixed with printing buffer to a final concentration of 40 μmol/L and printed in duplicate on the cleaned glass slides (75 × 25 mm). The total RNA 2.0 μg was labeled with 100 nmol/L of Cy5-dUTP (Enzo Life Sciences, New York, USA) in reverse transcription. Then the mixture of labeled RNA sample and 1× hybridization solution was hybridized onto the microarray for 12–18 h at 45 °C. After hybridization, the slides were washed in 1× SSC/1% SDS for 10 min at 45 °C, followed by sequential washing in 2 cycles of 0.5× SSC/0.1% SDS, 2 cycles of 0.2× SSC and 1 cycle of purified water for 1 min at room temperature, respectively, and then dried in a special small centrifuge and scanned using the InnoScan 700A Scanner (Innopsys Inc, France).

Microarray data processing

The raw microarray data were first processed by subtracting the background signals and then normalized with the quantile method and a log transformation. The log-transformed data were deposited in the GEO database (National Center for Biotechnology Information website), under GEO Accession number GSE143018 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE143018 ).

To identify differentially expressed lncRNAs between lung cancer tissues and paired normal lung tissues, the Significance Analysis of Microarrays (SAM) program was employed to identify lncRNAs with a fold-change of > 1.25, a P -value of < 0.01, and a false-discovery rate (FDR) of < 0.01 ( t test). Hierarchical-clustering analysis (for classifying the samples in the discovery cohort) was performed using the average-linkage method and uncentered Pearson’s correlation coefficients in MEV software, version 4.2.

Statistical analysis

Correlations between the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature and clinical characteristics were assessed by Fisher’s exact test and the χ 2 test, using SPSS software, version 23.0. The prognostic accuracies of the 4-lncRNA signature, the TNM staging system, and the combined-risk model were compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, which were generated using MedCalc software, version 11.4.2. The OS and DFS of patients were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the corresponding graphs were generated using GraphPad Prism software, version 8.0.

The impacts of the lncRNA-expression level and clinical characteristics on DFS and OS were determined using univariate and multivariate Cox-regression models. By employing the risk-score method reported previously [ 28 , 29 ], 15 lncRNAs were incorporated into different combinations to construct a signature and tested by survival analysis, and the lncRNAs were gradually subtracted from the combinations to obtain a final 4-lncRNA signature with the greatest prognostic value.

Results

Detection of lncRNA-expression profiles in NSCLC tissues from the discovery cohort, using a custom microarray

The 366 patients with NSCLC from Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center in Southern China were randomly divided into a discovery cohort and a validation cohort. The clinical characteristics of these patients are shown in Table 1 . We first detected the lncRNA-expression profiles in 194 NSCLC samples and 100 matched normal lung tissues in the discovery cohort, using an in-house generated lncRNA microarray containing 2412 human lncRNA probes. After subtracting the background signals, and normalizing and log-transforming the microarray data, we analyzed the lncRNA-expression profiles with the SAM program and Student’s t test, and identified 305 differentially expressed lncRNAs between the NSCLC tissues and adjacent normal lung tissues (FDR = 0 and fold-change > 1.25), of which 138 lncRNAs were upregulated and 167 were down-regulated in the NSCLC tissues (Additional file 1 : Fig. S1 and Table S2). The log-transformed microarray data were submitted and deposited in the GEO database.

To confirm the reliability and repeatability of the microarray results, 5 out of 15 prognostic lncRNAs were selected for qRT-PCR analysis with 30 pairs of samples that were randomly selected from the discovery cohort. Of these 5 lncRNAs, 2 (NEAT1 and XLOC_009261) were up-regulated and 3 (XLOC_005302, XLOC_001306, and lnc-GAN1) were down-regulated in the lung cancer tissues, compared with that in the normal lung tissues. The expression-level ratios of the 5 lncRNAs in cancer tissues versus adjacent tissues detected by qRT-PCR were consistent with the microarray results (Fig. 1 a) and significant correlations were found between the qRT-PCR and microarray data for the 5 lncRNAs (Fig. 1 b–f). These results reveal that the lncRNA-expression levels detected with the lncRNA microarray are reliable and reproducible, which can be used for further analysis. Fig. 1 Comparison of microarray data with qRT-PCR data. To confirm the microarray data are reliable and reproducible, five lncRNAs were measured by real-time quantitative RT-PCR in 30 pairs of lung cancer and matched normal lung tissues. a The expression levels of 5 lncRNAs detected by microarray were consistent with those measured by qRT-PCR. b – f Significant correlations were found between the expression levels of 5 lncRNAs detected by real-time qPCR and by the microarray (Pearson correlation, P < 0.001)

Identification of a 4-lncRNA prognostic signature for NSCLC patients in the discovery cohort

To elucidate the prognostic significance of lncRNAs in NSCLC, we conducted univariate Cox regression analysis on all 305 differentially expressed lncRNAs in the discovery cohort. Based on the threshold of P -value<0.05, 15 lncRNAs were significantly associated with OS in the NSCLC patients (Table 2 ), of which 6 lncRNAs were risky and 9 lncRNAs were protective. Table 2 Summary of 15 lncRNAs associated with overall survival of NSCLC patients in the discovery cohort No LncRNA Weight P value HR (95% CI) Putative function 1 BF768381 0.168 0.048 1.183 (1.001–1.390) High-risk 2 DD3 0.212 0.035 1.236 (1.015–1.500) High-risk 3 BF944729 0.228 0.045 1.255 (1.005–1.560) High-risk 4 SRG1 0.439 0.006 1.552 (1.136–2.120) High-risk 5 NEAT1 0.412 0.003 1.510 (1.154–1.970) High-risk 6 Zeb2NAT 0.344 0.019 1.411 (1.057–1.880) High-risk 7 ASLNC03555 − 0.574 0.025 0.563 (0.342–0.920) Protective 8 ASLNC09137 − 0.488 0.025 0.614 (0.401–0.940) Protective 9 GSO_1539211_377 − 0.578 0.039 0.561 (0.324–0.970) Protective 10 GSO_1539832_035 − 0.486 0.041 0.615 (0.386–0.980) Protective 11 Lnc-GAN1 − 0.349 0.048 0.705 (0.499–0.990) Protective 12 GSO_1539211_480 − 0.446 0.007 0.640 (0.463–0.880) Protective 13 ASLNC11245 − 1.269 0.000 0.281 (0.143–0.550) Protective 14 BF375442 − 0.348 0.026 0.706 (0.520–0.950) Protective 15 GSO_1539832_023 − 0.503 0.010 0.605 (0.412–0.880) Protective

To determine an optimal lncRNA combination (signature) for predicting the survival outcomes of patients with NSCLC, we employed the 15 lncRNAs associated with survival to establish a prognostic signature with a risk-score method, as previously reported [ 28 , 29 ]. Using this method, we established a 4-lncRNA signature with the highest prognostic power, consisting of NEAT1, lnc-GAN1, ASLNC11245, and GSO_1539832_023. Based on the expression levels of the 4 lncRNAs (measured by microarray analysis and weighted by their corresponding regression coefficients derived from univariate Cox-regression analysis), the risk scores were calculated as follows: \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Risk score}} & = \left( {0.412 \times {\text{NEAT1 level}}} \right) + \left( { - 0. 3 4 9\times {\text{lnc - GAN1 level}}} \right) \\ & \quad + \left( { - 1. 2 6 9\times {\text{ASLNC11245 level}}} \right) + \left( { - 0. 50 3\times {\text{GSO}}\_ 1 5 3 9 8 3 2\_0 2 3 {\text{ level}}} \right). \\ \end{aligned}$$\end{document} Risk score = 0.412 × NEAT1 level + - 0.349 × lnc - GAN1 level + - 1.269 × ASLNC11245 level + - 0.503 × GSO _ 1539832 _ 023 level .

The risk-score formula was used to calculate risk scores for each patient, who were divided into high- and low-risk groups according to median risk score. Kaplan–Meier-survival analysis showed that patients in the high-risk group had remarkably lower OS and DFS rates than those in the low-risk group (Fig. 2 a), implying that this prognostic signature is potentially highly effective for predicting the survival of patients with NSCLC. Fig. 2 The 4-lncRNA signature as a powerful predictor for OS and DFS of patients with NSCLC in the 3 cohorts. Patients with NSCLC were divided into high- and low-risk groups, based on the 4-lncRNA signature risk, and analyzed with Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Patients with high-risk had significantly worse OS (left panel) and DFS (right panel) in ( a ) the discovery cohort (n = 194), b the validation cohort (n = 172) and c the independent cohort (n = 73)

Validation of the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature in patients with NSCLC from a multicenter registry

To verify the prognostic value of the 4-lncRNA signature identified in the discovery cohort, we attempted to validate it with NSCLC patients from two different geographical locations, where one cohort was used as an internal validation cohort, and the other was used as an independent validation cohort. First, we tested the 4-lncRNA signature with the internal validation cohort (n = 172 NSCLC samples) acquired from the same center as the discovery cohort in southern China. The NSCLC samples in the internal validation cohort were analyzed using the same lncRNA microarray and risk-score formula that was used for the discovery cohort. Based on the risk scores, patients in the internal validation cohort were classified into high-risk and low-risk groups. Survival analysis showed that patients in the high-risk group had significantly lower OS and DFS rates than those in the low-risk group (Fig. 2 b), which was consistent with the results obtained in the discovery cohort.

Second, we tested the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature with another 73 NSCLC samples (as an independent validation cohort) obtained from another medical center in southwestern China and detected the expression of the 4 lncRNAs using qRT-PCR. Then, univariate Cox-regression analysis was performed on the 4 lncRNAs, and a risk-score formula was constructed with the same method used in the discovery cohort: \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\begin{aligned} {\text{Risk score}} & = (0. 2 9 7\times {\text{NEAT1}}\;{\text{level}}) + ( - 0. 2 5 9\times {\text{lnc - GAN1}}\;{\text{level}}) \\ & \quad + ( - 0. 70 6\times {\text{ASLNC11245}}\;{\text{level}}) + ( - 0. 1 5 3\times {\text{GSO}}\_ 1 5 3 9 8 3 2\_0 2 3\;{\text{level}}). \\ \end{aligned}$$\end{document} Risk score = ( 0.297 × NEAT1 level ) + ( - 0.259 × lnc - GAN1 level ) + ( - 0.706 × ASLNC11245 level ) + ( - 0.153 × GSO _ 1539832 _ 023 level ) .

We calculated the risk score for each patient with the new formula (shown immediately above) in the independent validation cohort. By applying the median risk score as the cutoff point, patients were categorized into high- and low-risk groups. As shown in Fig. 2 c, the OS and DFS rates of patients with NSCLC in the high-risk group were significantly lower than those in the low-risk group, which was in concordance with the results obtained from the discovery and internal validation cohorts. The above results demonstrated that the 4-lncRNA signature is correlated significantly with the prognosis of patients with NSCLC from a multicenter cohort in different geographical regions, suggesting that the 4-lncRNA signature is a new and powerful prognostic biomarker for patients with NSCLC from different regions of China.

The 4-lncRNA prognostic signature was independent of the TNM staging system

To gain deeper insight into the clinical significance of the 4-lncRNA signature, we first conducted a correlation analysis between the signature and any associated clinical characteristics. The results showed that the 4-lncRNA signature did not correlate with any clinical characteristics in the 3 cohorts (Table 3 ), implying that the signature was independent of the clinical characteristics. Then, we carried out a univariate Cox-regression analysis of the signature and clinical characteristics. The results revealed that only the 4-lncRNA signature and TNM stage were associated with the OS (Table 4 ) and DFS (Table 5 ) rates of patients with NSCLC in all the 3 cohorts, providing further evidence that the 4-lncRNA signature is a useful prognostic indicator. Finally, we performed a multivariate Cox-regression analysis on the 4-lncRNA signature and all clinical characteristics. After adjustment for other clinicopathological variables, both the 4-lncRNA signature and the TNM stage correlated significantly with OS and DFS rates of patients in all the 3 cohorts, whereas other factors did not (Table 6 ). To further confirm the utility of the 4-lncRNA signature as an independent predictive factor for survival, we performed a stratified analysis of patients at three different TNM stages with the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature. Patients in the same TNM stage (stage I, II, or III) were divided into high- or low-risk subgroups, based on the risk scores generated with the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature. The results showed that NSCLC patients with high-risk scores generally had significantly lower OS and DFS rates than those with low-risk scores (Fig. 3 ) in stage I, II, or III, indicating that the prognostic 4-lncRNA signature is performed independently of the TNM staging system. Collectively, these results indicated that the 4-lncRNA signature is a powerful and independent prognostic indicator for patients with NSCLC. Table 3 The relationship between 4-lncRNA signature and Clinical characteristics in the three NSCLC patient cohorts Characteristics Discovery cohort (N = 194) Validation cohort (N = 172) Independent cohort (N = 73) Low-risk High-risk P value Low-risk High-risk P value Low-risk High-risk P value n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Age ≥ 60 52 (53.6) 49 (50.5) 0.706 49 (57.0) 46 (53.5) 0.816 19 (51.4) 21 (58.3) 0.493 < 60 45 (46.4) 48 (49.5) 37 (43.0) 40 (46.5) 18 (48.6) 15 (41.7) Gender Male 82 (84.5) 72 (74.2) 0.269 67 (77.9) 69 (80.2) 0.374 29 (78.4) 23 (63.9) 0.290 Female 15 (15.5) 25 (25.8) 19 (22.1) 17 (19.8) 8 (21.6) 13 (36.1) TNM stage I 46 (47.4) 41 (42.3) 0.637 39 (45.3) 35 (40.7) 0.702 13 (35.1) 10 (27.8) 0.518 II 11 (11.3) 21 (21.6) 18 (21.0) 16 (18.6) 8 (21.6) 12 (33.3) III 40 (41.2) 35 (36.1) 29 (33.7) 35 (40.7) 16 (43.2) 14 (38.9) Histological type ADC 55 (56.7) 40 (41.2) 0.304 39 (45.3) 50 (58.1) 0.297 25 (67.6) 22 (61.1) 0.451 SCC 39 (40.2) 49 (50.5) 40 (46.5) 36 (41.9) 12 (32.4) 14 (38.9) ADC/SCC 3 (3.1) 8 (8.3) 7 (8.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Tumor size (cm) < 5 59 (60.8) 49 (50.5) 0.332 46 (53.5) 51 (59.3) 0.573 13 (35.1) 18 (50.0) 0.197 ≥ 5 38 (39.2) 48 (49.5) 40 (46.5) 35 (40.7) 24 (64.9) 18 (50.0) Differentiation Well/moderate 58 (59.8) 68 (70.1) 0.402 44 (51.2) 61 (70.9) 0.203 19 (51.4) 24 (66.7) 0.310 Poor 39 (40.2) 29 (29.9) 42 (48.8) 25 (29.1) 18 (48.6) 12 (33.3) Lymph metastasis No 47 (48.5) 58 (59.8) 0.257 39 (45.3) 42 (48.8) 0.574 21 (56.8) 24 (66.7) 0.297 Yes 50 (51.5) 39 (40.2) 47(54.7) 44 (51.2) 16 (43.2) 12 (33.3) Smoking history No 36 (37.1) 43 (44.3) 0.503 29 (33.7) 33 (38.4) 0.692 15 (40.5) 18 (50.0) 0.307 Yes 61 (62.9) 54 (55.7) 57 (66.3) 53 (61.6) 22 (59.5) 18 (50.0) Fam. cancer hist. No 84 (86.6) 77 (79.3) 0.396 73 (75.3) 78 (90.7) 0.417 36 (97.3) 35 (97.2) 0.664 Yes 13 (13.4) 20 (20.7) 13 (13.4) 8 (9.3) 1 (2.7) 1 (2.8) Fam. cancer hist. Family cancer history Table 4 Univariate Cox regression analysis of the impact of the lncRNA signature and other clinicopathological features on OS in the three NSCLC patient cohorts Parameters Training cohort Validation cohort Independent cohort Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Signature (High vs low) 3.20 (0.58–1.65) < 0.001 2.84 (1.59–5.07) < 0.001 2.84 (1.59–5.07) 0.009 Age (≥ 60 vs < 60) 1.24 (0.73–2.09) 0.417 1.13 (0.67–1.91) 0.330 0.88 (0.36–2.13) 0.782 Gender (Male vs female) 0.86 (0.48–1.52) 0.619 1.24 (0.63–2.41) 0.050 0.98 (0.37–2.57) 0.978 TNM stages (III vs II vs I) 1.67 (1.28–2.19) < 0.001 1.70 (1.30–2.23) 0.001 1.74 (1.04–2.89) 0.031 Histological type (ADC vs SCC) 1.30 (0.74–2.29) 0.346 1.39 (0.82–2.36) 0.589 0.53 (0.15–1.83) 0.320 Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) 1.17 (0.69–1.98) 0.545 1.15 (0.68–1.95) 0.017 3.00 (1.00–9.00) 0.048 Differentiation (Poor vs well/mod) 0.98 (0.58–1.65) 0.951 1.43 (0.85–2.42) 0.079 1.80 (0.74–4.32) 0.188 Lymph metastasis (Yes vs no) 1.44 (0.86–2.43) 0.163 0.73 (0.43–1.24) 0.025 1.38 (0.46–4.14) 0.561 Smoking history (Yes vs no) 0.91 (0.54–1.54) 0.736 1.63 (0.92–2.91) 0.024 1.11 (0.46–2.68) 0.812 Fam. cancer hist. (Yes vs no) 1.04 (0.52–2.06) 0.899 1.18 (0.58–2.42) 0.580 0.47 (2.97–7.64) 0.618 Italic P values represent the statistic significance Fam. cancer hist. Family cancer history Table 5 Univariate Cox regression analysis of the impact of lncRNA signature and other clinicopathological features on DFS in the three NSCLC patient cohorts Parameters Training group Validation group Independent group Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Signature (High vs low) 2.61 (1.50–4.56) < 0.001 3.21 (1.80–5.71) < 0.001 2.18 (1.10–4.34) 0.025 Age (≥ 60 vs < 60) 1.30 (0.76–2.21) 0.330 1.30 (0.76–2.21) 0.510 1.19 (0.60–2.35) 0.599 Gender (Male vs female) 0.57 (0.33–1.00) 0.050 0.97 (0.53–1.78) 0.945 0.77 (0.37–1.60) 0.496 TNM stages (III vs II vs I) 1.55 (1.18–2.04) 0.001 1.70 (1.29–2.25) < 0.001 1.46 (1.00–2.12) 0.045 Histological type (ADC vs SCC) 0.83 (0.44–1.59) 0.589 1.48 (0.88–2.49) 0.133 1.02 (0.45–2.29) 0.954 Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) 1.89 (1.12–3.22) 0.017 1.57 (0.94–2.61) 0.082 1.92 (0.92–4.03) 0.081 Differentiation (Poor vs well/moderate) 0.62 (0.36–1.05) 0.079 1.22 (0.73–2.04) 0.427 1.29 (0.65–2.57) 0.453 Lymph metastasis (Yes vs no) 1.82 (1.07–3.10) 0.025 1.72 (1.01–2.91) 0.042 2.13 (0.87–5.23) 0.095 Smoking history (Yes vs no) 0.54 (0.32–0.92) 0.024 1.15 (0.68–1.95) 0.586 1.00 (0.51–1.97) 0.989 Fam. cancer hist. (Yes vs no) 0.80 (0.38–1.71) 0.580 0.69 (0.31–1.53) 0.369 1.23 (0.16–9.12) 0.834 Italic P values represent the statistic significance Fam. cancer hist. Family cancer history Table 6 Multivariate Cox regression analysis of the impact of lncRNA signature and clinicopathological features on OS and DFS in the three NSCLC patient cohorts Dataset Parameters Overall survival Disease-free survival Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value Training Signature 3.18 (1.62–6.23) 0.001 2.17 (1.35–3.47) 0.001 Age 1.07 (0.78–1.45) 0.401 1.03 (0.76–1.40) 0.845 Gender 1.61 (0.57–4.51) 0.365 1.42 (0.54–3.73) 0.474 TNM stages 1.61 (1.09–2.15) 0.008 1.47 (1.06–2.05) 0.022 Histological types 0.99 (0.61–1.61) 0.965 0.94 (0.58–1.51) 0.783 Tumor sizes 0.91 (0.47–1.73) 0.767 0.86 (0.45–1.64) 0.657 Differentiation 1.18 (0.78–1.78) 0.43 1.12 (0.75–1.68) 0.587 Pleural invasion 1.60 (0.85–3.01) 0.147 1.79 (0.96–3.35) 0.068 Vascular invasion 2.17 (0.75–6.28) 0.154 1.86 (0.65–5.34) 0.248 Smoking history 2.94 (1.15–7.50) 0.024 2.60 (1.09–6.24) 0.032 Fam. cancer hist. 0.58 (0.25–1.37) 0.218 0.53 (0.23–1.25) 0.146 Validation Signature 2.41 (1.47–3.97) 0.001 2.49 (1.53–4.05) <0.001 Age 1.14 (0.87–1.49) 0.359 1.13 (0.87–1.48) 0.349 Gender 0.64 (0.32–1.27) 0.201 0.79 (0.41–1.55) 0.498 TNM stages 1.40 (1.03–1.91) 0.031 1.40 (1.04–1.88) 0.026 Histological types 0.92 (0.62–1.38) 0.697 0.94 (0.63–1.4) 0.763 Tumor sizes 1.41 (0.80–2.49) 0.240 1.27 (0.73–2.23) 0.402 Differentiation 0.89 (0.59–1.32) 0.552 0.88 (0.60–1.31) 0.537 Pleural invasion 1.42 (0.85–2.39) 0.185 1.51 (0.90–2.52) 0.116 Vascular invasion 5.40 (1.73–16.8) 0.004 4.91 (1.59–15.17) 0.006 Smoking history 0.54 (0.28–1.04) 0.064 0.52 (0.27–1.00) 0.050 Fam. cancer hist. 1.22 (0.66–2.28) 0.521 1.48 (0.81–2.70) 0.206 Independent Signature 1.88 (1.15–3.08) 0.012 1.80 (1.14–2.84) 0.012 Age 1.00 (0.70–1.42) 0.988 1.19 (0.86–1.66) 0.294 Gender 0.80 (0.46–1.40) 0.430 0.70 (0.42–1.18) 0.183 TNM stages 1.80 (1.28–2.54) 0.001 1.69 (1.24–2.30) 0.001 Histological types 1.26 (0.74–2.13) 0.395 1.12 (0.69–1.84) 0.640 Tumor sizes 1.78 (1.06–2.97) 0.028 1.92 (1.19–3.09) 0.008 Differentiation 1.66 (1.03–2.66) 0.037 1.81 (1.16–2.83) 0.009 Pleural invasion 1.26 (0.68–2.33) 0.466 1.59 (0.87–2.91) 0.130 Vascular invasion 1.75 (0.39–7.92) 0.468 2.81 (0.79–9.98) 0.110 Italic P values represent the statistic significance Fam. cancer hist. Family cancer history Fig. 3 The 4-lncRNA signature predicted different survivals rates in patients with NSCLC at the same TNM stage. Based on the 4-lncRNA signature risk score, patients with NSCLC at the same stage were divided into high- and low-risk groups. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to estimate patients’ survival rate in the discovery cohort. NSCLC patients with high risk (based on the 4-lncRNA signature) showed significantly poorer OS (left panel) and DFS (right panel) rates than those in low-risk group at a stage I (n = 87), b stage II (n = 32) and c stage III (n = 84)

The 4-lncRNA signature provids additional prognostic information to the TNM staging system in patients with NSCLC

In clinical practice, the traditional TNM staging system is the main assessment used to predict the survival of patients with NSCLC and to determine the treatment strategy. However, the TNM staging system is mainly based on anatomical information and does not include factors related to the tumor biology. Therefore, the TNM system is insufficient for predicting survival outcomes in patients with NSCLC [ 30 ]. For example, Kaplan–Meier-survival analysis of the 3 cohorts in this study showed that the TNM stage system did not effectively determine the prognosis of NSCLC patients at different stages, especially in stages I and II (Fig. 4 ). To improve the ability of the TNM staging system to predict patient survival, we established a new risk-score model by combining the risk scores of the 4-lncRNA signature and the TNM staging system: low- and high-risk signatures were scored as 0 and 1, respectively, and stage I, II, and III NSCLC were scored as 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Patients with combined scores of 1, 2–3, or 4 were classified as low-, medium- or high-risk patients, respectively. Then we performed Kaplan–Meier-survival analysis of the patients with different combined risks in the 3 cohorts. The results revealed significant differences in OS and DFS rates between patients with low, medium, or high risk in the discovery cohort (Fig. 5 a), and these results were confirmed in the internal validation and independent validation cohorts (Fig. 5 b, c). Fig. 4 The TNM staging system did not predict survival well in the 3 NSCLC cohorts. The TNM staging system is the main tool for predicting survival and determining the treatment strategies, but it did not predict survival well for patients with NSCLC. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for OS and DFS of patients with stage I, II, or III NSCLC in a the discovery cohort (n = 194), b the validation cohort (n = 172), and c the independent cohort (n = 73) are shown Fig. 5 The prognostic value of the combination of the 4-lnRNA signature and TNM stage in the 3 NSCLC cohorts. To improve the TNM staging system, the 4-lnRNA signature is combined with TNM stage to construct a new risk model for predicting survival in patients with NSCLC. According to the new risk score, patients were categorized into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. Then Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to compare the OS and DFS of patients with low, medium, or high risk in a the discovery cohort, b the internal validation cohort, and c the independent validation cohort

Next, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare the accuracy of the TNM staging system and the combined-risk model. ROC analysis showed that the combined-risk model achieved a significantly higher predictive accuracy for OS (AUC = 0.726 vs. 0.644) and DFS (AUC = 0.723 vs. 0.641) than that achieved by the TNM staging system in the discovery cohort (Fig. 6 a). Similar results were observed in the internal validation cohort and the independent validation cohort (Fig. 6 b, c). These results demonstrated that the 4-lncRNA signature can provide additional prognostic information and improve the prognostic power of the TNM staging system. Fig. 6 The combined prognostic model is significantly better than the TNM staging system alone in predicting the survival of patients with NSCLC. ROC analysis was employed to compare the predictive accuracy of the three survival predictors including 4-lncRNA signature, the TNM stage and the combined model. A comparison of the three survival predictors in predicting OS (left panel) and DFS (right panel) in the discovery cohort ( a ), internal validation cohort ( b ) and independent validation cohort ( c ) is shown

Discussion

LncRNAs are widely dysregulated in various cancers and participate in a diverse range of associated biological functions. Numerous aberrant lncRNAs have been detected as hallmarks of cancers and can potentially be used for diagnosis, prognosis, and targeted therapy in cancer. Some investigators have discovered lncRNA profiles and lncRNA signatures in NSCLC by mining data from the GEO and TCGA databases. For example, Zhou et al [ 31 ] analyzed the lncRNA-expression profiles of 603 patients from 3 independent NSCLC cohorts in the GEO database and developed a risk-score model based on the expression of 8 lncRNAs, which were significantly associated with OS in patients with NSCLC. Lin et al. [ 10 ] identified a 7-lncRNA signature for predicting the OS of patients with NSCLC after combining lncRNA profiles from 4 GEO datasets and validated the signature in 2 independent datasets (TCGA and GSE31210 ). Recently, He et al. [ 32 ] proposed a novel 8-gene signature as a prognostic indicator for patients with early-stage NSCLC after analyzing data from the GEO and TCGA projects. However, the abovementioned prognostic signatures generated by data mining have not been confirmed in patients with NSCLC in a prospective multicenter study. Therefore, the clinical application of prognostic lncRNA biomarkers in NSCLC remains very limited to date. Here, we report the first lncRNA-expression profiling (as determined by microarray analysis) of a large cohort of patients with NSCLC and the identification of an effective prognostic 4-lncRNA signature.

In this study, we identified 305 aberrantly expressed lncRNAs in 104 NSCLC tissues when compared with those in matched normal tissues in the discovery cohort, using a custom lncRNA microarray containing 2412 probes. Notably, we identified a novel 4-lncRNA prognostic signature for patients with NSCLC in the discovery cohort. Kaplan–Meier-survival analysis demonstrated the effective prognostic performance of the 4-lncRNA signature in all the 3 cohorts. Multivariate Cox-regression analysis identified the 4-lncRNA signature as an independent prognostic factor for patients with NSCLC in all the cohorts.

Although TNM staging is widely accepted for disease prognosis and guiding treatment decisions for most solid cancers (including NSCLC), at present, the TNM staging system has critical limitations and insufficiencies in clinical practice, due to intra-tumoral molecular and genetic heterogeneities among patients with lung cancer. The clinical outcomes of lung cancer patients with similar clinical and pathological features are often quite different after receiving similar treatments. Therefore, more personalized molecular markers are urgently needed to assist doctors in clinical practice. In our stratified analysis, the 4-lncRNA signature showed prognostic value for patients at the same stage. Moreover, a risk-score model derived by combining the 4-lnRNA signature and the TNM stage was developed. The combined risk score showed superior performance in predicting OS and DFS rates in all the 3 cohorts, compared with TNM staging system, based on Kaplan–Meier-survival analysis and ROC analysis. Our findings demonstrated that the 4-lncRNA signature can significantly improve the prognostic accuracy of TNM staging and that it can potentially be considered as a marker for risk assessment among patients with NSCLC. Combining the 4-lncRNA signature with the traditional TNM staging parameters might serve as a powerful prognostic approach for patients with NSCLC and can potentially facilitate the selection of patients with more aggressive disease who would benefit from adjuvant therapy.

Among the 4 lncRNAs in the lncRNA signature, only NEAT1 has been linked with cancer. NEAT1 is aberrantly expressed in many malignant human diseases (including lung cancer) and functions as an oncogene. Higher NEAT1 expression correlated with an advanced TNM stage and lymphatic metastasis in patients with NSCLC [ 33 ]. Previous findings revealed that NEAT1 promoted the epithelial–mesenchymal transition and metastasis in NSCLC via the Wnt/β-catenin pathway [ 25 , 34 ]. However, the association of NEAT1 with the survival of patients with lung cancer has not been reported previously. Consistent with published reports, we found that NEAT1 expression was significantly higher in NSCLC tissues than in adjacent normal tissues (fold-change = 1.7). Moreover, we found the first evidence that NEAT1 can serve as an independent prognostic indicator for patients with NSCLC (unpublished data). To our knowledge, the remaining 3 lncRNAs (lnc-GAN1, ASLNC11245, and GSO_1539832_023) in the prognostic 4-lncRNA signature have not been functionally annotated. In our study, these 3 lncRNAs were significantly down-regulated in lung cancer tissues compared with adjacent normal tissues (fold-change = 0.39, 0.75, and 0.47, respectively), and high expression levels of these lncRNAs could serve as indicators for a good prognosis of patients with NSCLC.

Current treatment strategies for lung cancer have led to a comprehensive approach that includes surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, gene therapy, and immunotherapy [ 35 , 36 ]. Based on insights gained into the molecular mechanisms underlying NSCLC in the past 10 years, common mutations in genes encoding EGFR-TKIs (EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors), programmed cell death protein 1, and members of the epidermal growth factor receptor super-family have been treated clinically with targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors [ 37 – 43 ]. Even though these targeted therapies have improved the survival rates and quality of life of patients with NSCLC, their effects are far from satisfactory. Most patients exhibit drug resistance or disease progression after receiving treatment for a certain period of time [ 44 , 45 ]. Therefore, specific biomarkers for monitoring therapeutic responses in patients with NSCLC are urgently needed. By applying microarray and RNA-seq technology in cancer research, numerous molecular biomarkers have been identified that can predict the responses to specific treatment regimens [ 46 – 48 ]. Of the 4-lncRNA signature identified in this study, NEAT1 was significantly up-regulated in paclitaxel-resistant NSCLC cells and contributed to paclitaxel resistance by activating the Akt/mTOR-signaling pathway [ 49 ]. Recent data showed that NEAT1 can inhibit apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells by regulating genes involved in DNA-repair processes, including the homologous-recombination pathway, suggesting its association with drug resistance [ 49 ]. Therefore, NEAT1, a component of our 4-lncRNA signature, may play an important role in NSCLC.

Although the 4-lncRNA prognostic signature is a novel and potentially powerful predictor for survival in NSCLC patients, further prospective validation studies in larger cohorts and clinical trials are still required. This study also has other limitations. First, although the 4-lncRNA signature was identified in a large number of NSCLC samples from 2 different regions of China, the signature still needs to be validated in a larger prospective multicenter study, involving patients from more institutions and other countries. Second, the efficacy of models based on multiple types of markers are thought to provide better prognostic value than a single type of marker. Thus, further study will be conducted to identify a multi-gene panel by integrating lncRNAs, microRNAs, and messenger RNAs, with the aim of obtaining a more accurate prognostic assessment of NSCLC. Finally, further experiments need to be performed to elucidate the characteristics and functions of the identified prognostic lncRNAs.

Conclusions

In this study, our findings reveal a tumor-specific lncRNA expression profile in NSCLC tissues and a novel prognostic signature based on 4 lncRNAs, which is a powerful and independent predictor of OS and DFS in patients with NSCLC. Moreover, a new prognostic model is developed by combining the 4-lncRNA signature and TNM stage to refine the current staging system and to improve the predictive performance. The results of our study suggest that the 4-lncRNA classifier might serve as a precise predictive biomarker for selecting high-risk patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy and thus guide the personalized management of patients with NSCLC.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1. Additional 2 tables and 1 figures.

Abbreviations

Adenocarcinoma

Disease-free survival

False-discovery rate

Gene Expression Omnibus

Inter-quartile range

Long non-coding RNA

Non-small cell lung carcinoma

Overall survival

Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction

RNA-sequencing

Receiver operating characteristic

Significance Analysis of Microarrays

Squamous cell carcinoma

Standard deviation

Sodium dodecyl sulfate

Saline-sodium citrate

The Cancer Genome Atlas

Tumor, nodes, and metastases

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rui-Qi Wang, Xiao-Ran Long and Chun-Lei Ge contributed equally to this work

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12967-020-02485-8.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Mr. Qing-Feng Zhang for his help in bioinformatics analysis., a postgraduates of Sun Yat-Sen University.

Authors’ contributions

HYW, SJM, and XRL conceived and designed this study; RQW and XRL performed experiments, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the manuscript; MYZ and LH designed the microarray and analyzed the microarray data; CLG, NNZ, YH, RLL, ZL, DC, LJZ and ZSW collected clinical samples, interpreted data and clinical information; SJM improved and revised the manuscript; HYW analyzed and interpreted data, supervised experiments, and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers 81772991, 81572466, and 81372564 to HYW; 81772884 to MSJ).

Availability of data and materials

All data in our study are available upon request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. The research was conducted according to all ethical standards, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for publication

Consent to publish was obtained from all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1. Siegel RL Miller KD Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2020 CA Cancer J Clin 2020 70 7 30 10.3322/caac.21590 31912902

2. Rusch VW Chansky K Kindler HL Nowak AK Pass HI Rice DC Shemanski L Galateau-Salle F McCaughan BC Nakano T The IASLC Mesothelioma Staging Project: proposals for the M descriptors and for revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (Eighth) edition of the TNM classification for mesothelioma J Thorac Oncol 2016 11 2112 2119 27687962 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.09.124

3. Herbst RS Morgensztern D Boshoff C The biology and management of non-small cell lung cancer Nature 2018 553 446 454 29364287 10.1038/nature25183

4. Allemani C Matsuda T Di Carlo V Harewood R Matz M Niksic M Bonaventure A Valkov M Johnson CJ Esteve J Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries Lancet 2018 391 1023 1075 29395269 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3 PMC5879496

5. Carter BW Lichtenberger JP 3rd Benveniste MK de Groot PM Wu CC Erasmus JJ Truong MT Revisions to the TNM staging of lung cancer: rationale, significance, and clinical application Radiographics 2018 38 374 391 29528831 10.1148/rg.2018170081

6. Reck M Rabe KF Precision diagnosis and treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2017 377 849 861 28854088 10.1056/NEJMra1703413

7. Wei MM Zhou GB Long non-coding RNAs and their roles in non-small-cell lung cancer Genom Proteom Bioinform 2016 14 280 288 10.1016/j.gpb.2016.03.007 PMC5093404 27397102

8. Fang B Mehran RJ Heymach JV Swisher SG Predictive biomarkers in precision medicine and drug development against lung cancer Chin J Cancer 2015 34 295 309 26134262 10.1186/s40880-015-0028-4 PMC4593363

9. Shukla S Evans JR Malik R Feng FY Dhanasekaran SM Cao X Chen G Beer DG Jiang H Chinnaiyan AM Development of a RNA-Seq based prognostic signature in lung adenocarcinoma J Natl Cancer Inst 2017 109 djw200 10.1093/jnci/djw200 PMC5051943 27707839

10. Lin T Fu Y Zhang X Gu J Ma X Miao R Xiang X Niu W Qu K Liu C Wu Q A seven-long noncoding RNA signature predicts overall survival for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer Aging 2018 10 2356 2366 30205363 10.18632/aging.101550 PMC6188476

11. Hiley CT Le Quesne J Santis G Sharpe R de Castro DG Middleton G Swanton C Challenges in molecular testing in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with advanced disease Lancet 2016 388 1002 1011 27598680 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31340-X

12. Lochowska BA Nowak D Bialasiewicz P Cell-free tumour DNA as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in non-small cell lung carcinoma Adv Respir Med 2019 87 118 122 31038724 10.5603/ARM.2019.0019

13. Chen HY Yu SL Chen CH Chang GC Chen CY Yuan A Cheng CL Wang CH Terng HJ Kao SF A five-gene signature and clinical outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2007 356 11 20 17202451 10.1056/NEJMoa060096

14. Yu H Xu Q Liu F Ye X Wang J Meng X Identification and validation of long noncoding RNA biomarkers in human non-small-cell lung carcinomas J Thorac Oncol 2015 10 645 654 25590602 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000470

15. Spizzo R Almeida MI Colombatti A Calin GA Long non-coding RNAs and cancer: a new frontier of translational research? Oncogene 2012 31 4577 4587 22266873 10.1038/onc.2011.621 PMC3433647

16. Khurana E Fu Y Chakravarty D Demichelis F Rubin MA Gerstein M Role of non-coding sequence variants in cancer Nat Rev Genet 2016 17 93 108 26781813 10.1038/nrg.2015.17

17. Mercer TR Dinger ME Mattick JS Long non-coding RNAs: insights into functions Nat Rev Genet 2009 10 155 159 19188922 10.1038/nrg2521

18. Kitagawa M Kitagawa K Kotake Y Niida H Ohhata T Cell cycle regulation by long non-coding RNAs Cell Mol Life Sci 2013 70 4785 4794 23880895 10.1007/s00018-013-1423-0 PMC3830198

19. Lee JT Epigenetic regulation by long noncoding RNAs Science 2012 338 1435 1439 23239728 10.1126/science.1231776

20. Schmitt AM Chang HY Long noncoding RNAs in cancer pathways Cancer Cell 2016 29 452 463 27070700 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.03.010 PMC4831138

21. Gutschner T Hammerle M Eissmann M Hsu J Kim Y Hung G Revenko A Arun G Stentrup M Gross M The noncoding RNA MALAT1 is a critical regulator of the metastasis phenotype of lung cancer cells Cancer Res 2013 73 1180 1189 23243023 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2850 PMC3589741

22. Schmidt LH Spieker T Koschmieder S Schaffers S Humberg J Jungen D Bulk E Hascher A Wittmer D Marra A The long noncoding MALAT-1 RNA indicates a poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer and induces migration and tumor growth J Thorac Oncol 2011 6 1984 1992 22088988 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182307eac

23. Schmidt LH Gorlich D Spieker T Rohde C Schuler M Mohr M Humberg J Sauer T Thoenissen NH Huge A Prognostic impact of Bcl-2 depends on tumor histology and expression of MALAT-1 lncRNA in non-small-cell lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2014 9 1294 1304 25036876 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000243

24. Li S Yang J Xia Y Fan Q Yang KP Long noncoding RNA NEAT1 promotes proliferation and invasion via targeting miR-181a-5p in non-small cell lung cancer Oncol Res 2018 26 289 296 28762332 10.3727/096504017X15009404458675 PMC7844613

25. Qi L Liu F Zhang F Zhang S Lv L Bi Y Yu Y lncRNA NEAT1 competes against let-7a to contribute to non-small cell lung cancer proliferation and metastasis Biomed Pharmacother 2018 103 1507 1515 29864936 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.04.053

26. Wang HY Luo M Tereshchenko IV Frikker DM Cui X Li JY Hu G Chu Y Azaro MA Lin Y A genotyping system capable of simultaneously analyzing >1000 single nucleotide polymorphisms in a haploid genome Genome Res 2005 15 276 283 15687291 10.1101/gr.2885205 PMC546529

27. Wang H Ach RA Curry B Direct and sensitive miRNA profiling from low-input total RNA RNA 2007 13 151 159 17105992 10.1261/rna.234507 PMC1705746

28. Yu SL Chen HY Chang GC Chen CY Chen HW Singh S Cheng CL Yu CJ Lee YC Chen HS MicroRNA signature predicts survival and relapse in lung cancer Cancer Cell 2008 13 48 57 18167339 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.12.008

29. Liu N Chen NY Cui RX Li WF Li Y Wei RR Zhang MY Sun Y Huang BJ Chen M Prognostic value of a microRNA signature in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a microRNA expression analysis Lancet Oncol 2012 13 633 641 22560814 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70102-X

30. Hu Z Chen X Zhao Y Tian T Jin G Shu Y Chen Y Xu L Zen K Zhang C Shen H Serum microRNA signatures identified in a genome-wide serum microRNA expression profiling predict survival of non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 2010 28 1721 1726 20194856 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.9342

31. Zhou M Guo M He D Wang X Cui Y Yang H Hao D Sun J A potential signature of eight long non-coding RNAs predicts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer J Transl Med 2015 13 231 26183581 10.1186/s12967-015-0556-3 PMC4504221

32. He R Zuo S A robust 8-gene prognostic signature for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer Front Oncol 2019 9 693 31417870 10.3389/fonc.2019.00693 PMC6684755

33. Pan LJ Zhong TF Tang RX Li P Dang YW Huang SN Chen G Upregulation and clinicopathological significance of long non-coding NEAT1 RNA in NSCLC tissues Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015 16 2851 2855 25854373 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.7.2851

34. Kong X Zhao Y Li X Tao Z Hou M Ma H Overexpression of HIF-2alpha-dependent NEAT1 promotes the progression of non-small cell lung cancer through miR-101-3p/SOX9/Wnt/beta-catenin signal pathway Cell Physiol Biochem 2019 52 368 381 30845377 10.33594/000000026

35. Kris MG Gaspar LE Chaft JE Kennedy EB Azzoli CG Ellis PM Lin SH Pass HI Seth R Shepherd FA Adjuvant systemic therapy and adjuvant radiation therapy for stage I to IIIA completely resected non-small-cell lung cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology/Cancer Care Ontario Clinical Practice Guideline Update J Clin Oncol 2017 35 2960 2974 28437162 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.4401

36. Camidge DR Doebele RC Kerr KM Comparing and contrasting predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy and targeted therapy of NSCLC Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2019 16 341 355 30718843 10.1038/s41571-019-0173-9

37. Best MG Sol N Kooi I Tannous J Westerman BA Rustenburg F Schellen P Verschueren H Post E Koster J RNA-seq of tumor-educated platelets enables blood-based pan-cancer, multiclass, and molecular pathway cancer diagnostics Cancer Cell 2015 28 666 676 26525104 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.09.018 PMC4644263

38. Gasparini P Cascione L Landi L Carasi S Lovat F Tibaldi C Ali G D’Incecco A Minuti G Chella A microRNA classifiers are powerful diagnostic/prognostic tools in ALK-, EGFR-, and KRAS-driven lung cancers Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015 112 14924 14929 26627242 10.1073/pnas.1520329112 PMC4672770

39. Socinski MA Jotte RM Cappuzzo F Orlandi F Stroyakovskiy D Nogami N Rodriguez-Abreu D Moro-Sibilot D Thomas CA Barlesi F Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC N Engl J Med 2018 378 2288 2301 29863955 10.1056/NEJMoa1716948

40. Soria JC Ohe Y Vansteenkiste J Reungwetwattana T Chewaskulyong B Lee KH Dechaphunkul A Imamura F Nogami N Kurata T Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2018 378 113 125 29151359 10.1056/NEJMoa1713137

41. Wu YL Cheng Y Zhou X Lee KH Nakagawa K Niho S Tsuji F Linke R Rosell R Corral J Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2017 18 1454 1466 28958502 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30608-3

42. Kim HS Mendiratta S Kim J Pecot CV Larsen JE Zubovych I Seo BY Kim J Eskiocak B Chung H Systematic identification of molecular subtype-selective vulnerabilities in non-small-cell lung cancer Cell 2013 155 552 566 24243015 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.041 PMC3836195

43. Arbour KC Riely GJ Systemic therapy for locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a review JAMA 2019 322 764 774 31454018 10.1001/jama.2019.11058

44. Hensing TA Schell MJ Lee JH Socinski MA Factors associated with the likelihood of receiving second line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer Lung Cancer 2005 47 253 259 15639724 10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.07.040

45. Zhang L Li S Choi YL Lee J Gong Z Liu X Pei Y Jiang A Ye M Mao M Systematic identification of cancer-related long noncoding RNAs and aberrant alternative splicing of quintuple-negative lung adenocarcinoma through RNA-seq Lung Cancer 2017 109 21 27 28577945 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.04.009

46. Singal G Miller PG Agarwala V Li G Kaushik G Backenroth D Gossai A Frampton GM Torres AZ Lehnert EM Association of patient characteristics and tumor genomics with clinical outcomes among patients with non-small cell lung cancer using a clinicogenomic database JAMA 2019 321 1391 1399 30964529 10.1001/jama.2019.3241 PMC6459115

47. Hirsch FR Scagliotti GV Mulshine JL Kwon R Curran WJ Jr Wu YL Paz-Ares L Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments Lancet 2017 389 299 311 27574741 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30958-8

48. Sandoval J Mendez-Gonzalez J Nadal E Chen G Carmona FJ Sayols S Moran S Heyn H Vizoso M Gomez A A prognostic DNA methylation signature for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer J Clin Oncol 2013 31 4140 4147 24081945 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.5516

49. Li B Gu W Zhu X NEAT1 mediates paclitaxel-resistance of non-small cell of lung cancer through activation of Akt/mTOR signalling pathway J Drug Target 2019 27 1061 1067 30782035 10.1080/1061186X.2019.1585437