| Literature DB >> 31040694 |
Kazushige Yoshida1, Masanori Okamoto1, Jun Sasaki1, Chika Kuroda2, Haruka Ishida2, Katsuya Ueda2, Satomi Okano2, Hirokazu Ideta1, Takayuki Kamanaka1, Atsushi Sobajima1, Takashi Takizawa1, Munehisa Kito1, Kaoru Aoki3, Takeshi Uemura2, Hisao Haniu2, Hiroyuki Kato1, Naoto Saito2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although both anti-PD-1 antibody and treatments using anti-PD-L1 antibody are currently in clinical use, their therapeutic effects vary according to cancer type. One of the factors accounting for this variability is the expression level of the immune checkpoint molecule that differs between cancer types; thus, it is important to clarify the relationship between clinical outcomes and immune checkpoint molecules for all types of human cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of osteosarcoma in relation to PD-L1, PRF, GZMB, and IFNγ expression.Entities:
Keywords: IFNγ; anti-PD-1 antibody; clinical outcome; granzyme B; osteosarcoma; perforin
Year: 2019 PMID: 31040694 PMCID: PMC6452806 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S198421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
Primers used in analysis of immune related genes in human osteosarcoma
| Species | Target gene | Forward | Reverse |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human | GCGCCGTCAGGCTGAGAAC | TGGTGAAGACGGCCGTGGA | |
| Human | ATTCTCAAGCCCTGCAGTCACA | AATGAAGGCTTTGCCACACCA | |
| Human | GCTGACAGCTGCTCACTGTTG | GCAGTAGCATGATGTCGTTGGA | |
| Human | CAATGTGACCAGCACACTGAGAA | GGCATAATAAGATGGCTCCCAGAA | |
| Human | CTTTAAAGATGACCAGAGCATCCAA | GGCGACAGTTCAGCCATCAC |
Background and gene expression in clinical specimens of osteosarcoma
| Age (years) | 6–77 | Range (average ± SD) (24.7±19.8) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female 6 | Male 13 |
| Location | Femur | Distal 11 |
| Tibia | Proximal 2 | |
| Fibula | Proximal 1 | |
| Humerus | Proximal 2 | |
| Metastasis at first visit | Yes | 10 |
| No | 9 | |
| Response to chemotherapy | Good | 12 |
| Bad | 6 | |
| Degree of tumor resection | R0 | 18 |
| Follow up (days) | 245–7,123 | (1,921±1,906) |
| Outcome | CDF | 6 |
| NED | 1 | |
| AWD | 3 | |
| DOD | 9 | |
| 0.0073–3.4 | Range (average ± SD) (0.87±1.1) | |
| High 4 | Low 15 | |
| 0.0011–4.3 | Range (average ± SD) (0.79±1.3) | |
| High 4 | Low 15 | |
| 0.0048–5.7 | Range (average ± SD) (0.73±1.5) | |
| High 2 | Low 17 | |
| 0.062–9.3 | Range (average ± SD) (2.0±2.8) | |
| High 8 | Low 11 |
Abbreviations: AWD, alive with disease; CDF, continuously disease-free; DOD, dead of disease; NED, no evidence of disease.
Figure 1Correlation between each T cell activation marker and PD-L1.
Notes: The relationship between gene expressions and clinical outcomes of human osteosarcoma clinical specimen was evaluated. (A) Scatter plot and approximate curve of GZMB and PRF expression (correlation coefficient, r=0.823; P<0.0001). (B) Scatter plot and approximate curve of GZMB and IFNγ expression (correlation coefficient, r=0.657; P=0.0022. (C) Scatter plot and approximate curve of IFNγ and PRF expression (correlation coefficient r=0.822, P<0.0001). (D) Scatter plot and approximate curve of expression of IFNγ and PD-L1 (correlation coefficient, r=0.668; P=0.0018). (E) Scatter plot and approximate curve of expression of GZMB and PD-L1 (correlation coefficient, r=0.855; P<0.0001). (F) Scatter plot and approximate curve of expression of PRF and PD-L1 (correlation coefficient r=0.680; P=0.0013).
Figure 2Relationship between PD-L1, each T cell activation marker, and metastasis.
Notes: (A) Kaplan–Meier curves when metastasis is defined as endpoint. We classified groups into high- and low-expression of PD-L1 (P=0.011, log rank analysis). (B–D) From the left, grouping was done with high and low PRF, GZMB, IFNγ expression, P=0.217, P=0.217, P=0.547 in log rank analysis.
Figure 3Relationship between PD-L1, each T cell activation marker, and overall survival.
Notes: (A) Kaplan–Meier curve with death as endpoint. We classified groups into high- and low-expression of GZMB (P=0.032, log rank analysis). (B–D) From the left, grouping was done by high and low expression of PRF, IFNγ, PD-L1 expression, and in log rank analysis P=0.032, P=0.165, P=0.429, respectively.