Evaluation of TRECs
. | Mean no. TRECs . | Mean contracture . | Sample no. . |
---|---|---|---|
Clinical stage | |||
IA | 6432.46 | 1.86 | 7 |
IB | 5293.29 | 2.44 | 18 |
IIB | 534.62 | 2.33 | 6 |
III | 268.12 | 6.56 | 8 |
Cluster | |||
1 | 1551.66 | 3.18 | 11 |
2 | 6980.11 | 2.03 | 15 |
3 | 1837.65 | 4.46 | 13 |
. | Mean no. TRECs . | Mean contracture . | Sample no. . |
---|---|---|---|
Clinical stage | |||
IA | 6432.46 | 1.86 | 7 |
IB | 5293.29 | 2.44 | 18 |
IIB | 534.62 | 2.33 | 6 |
III | 268.12 | 6.56 | 8 |
Cluster | |||
1 | 1551.66 | 3.18 | 11 |
2 | 6980.11 | 2.03 | 15 |
3 | 1837.65 | 4.46 | 13 |
Shown are TRECs with respect to clinical stage (P = .034) and cluster (P = .011). As shown previously,47 TRECs decreased significantly across all clinical stages, and contracture increased from early-stage to late-stage CTCL, indicating loss of T-cell receptor diversity. Clusters 1 and 3 had the lowest TREC levels and highest contractures, while cluster 2 had the highest TREC levels and the lowest contractures. These findings significantly correlate with the clinical observation of poorer outcome in clusters 1 and 3. P values calculated based on ANOVA.