Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies play a pivotal role in the comprehensive treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) generally exhibits a more favorable response to neoadjuvant therapy compared with lung adenocarcinoma (ADC). The aim of this study is to elucidate how baseline cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor-associated endothelial cells (TAECs) influence the differential therapeutic outcomes of neoadjuvant treatment in SCC versus ADC. METHODS: We retrospectively collected pretreatment biopsy samples from 104 patients with stage II-III NSCLC who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NAIC) at Shandong Cancer Hospital between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2023. Tissue microarrays were constructed using an automated arrayer, and multiplex immunofluorescence staining (α-SMA/CD31/CK/DAPI) was performed to identify CAFs (α-SMA+/CK-) and TAECs (CD31+/CK-). Quantitative analyses included CAFs and TAECs densities, the nearest neighbor distance (NND) between CAFs and TAECs, and their spatial proximity (30 μm). Differences in major pathological response (MPR) between groups, defined as residual viable tumor cells ≤10% in resected specimens after neoadjuvant therapy, were assessed using the χ² test. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to analyze intergroup differences in quantitative indicators, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to evaluate the predictive performance of immune-related markers for MPR in the NAIC cohort. RESULTS: Among the 104 NSCLC patients who received neoadjuvant therapy, 35 underwent NAIC and 69 received NAC. Overall, patients with SCC were more likely to achieve MPR compared with those with ADC (50.0% vs 22.4%, P=0.006). This trend persisted in the NAIC subgroup (72.7% vs 30.8%, P=0.038), whereas no significant difference in MPR rates was observed between SCC and ADC in the NAC subgroup. At baseline, prior to NAIC or NAC, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) expression, CAFs and TAECs densities, CAFs-TAECs NND, and CAFs-TAECs proximity (30 μm) showed no significant differences between SCC and ADC. In patients with SCC receiving NAIC, baseline PD-L1/PD-1 expression, CAFs density, and TAECs density showed not significant differences between MPR and NMPR groups. However, the CAFs-TAECs distance was significantly greater in the MPR group (NND: 31.2 vs 24.7 μm, P=0.038), and the number of TAECs within 30 μm of CAFs was significantly lower (proximity: 1.1 vs 3.6, P=0.038). Univariate Cox regression analysis indicated that low TAECs density was associated with MPR following NAIC (OR=36.00, 95%CI: 2.68-1486.88, P=0.019). Furthermore, ROC analysis demonstrated that baseline CAFs-TAECs NND and proximity (30 μm) exhibited strong predictive performance for MPR in SCC patients treated with NAIC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.893, sensitivity of 0.857, and specificity of 1.000. CONCLUSIONS: CAFs are more spatially distant from TAECs and more prone to MPR after NAIC in SCC, which may be related to the reduced interaction of CAFs with TAECs and reduced tumor-associated angiogenesis.