| Literature DB >> 31900171 |
Raquel Alves1,2,3, Stephanie E B McArdle4, Jayakumar Vadakekolathu4, Ana Cristina Gonçalves1,2,3, Paulo Freitas-Tavares5, Amélia Pereira2,6, Antonio M Almeida7,8, Ana Bela Sarmento-Ribeiro1,2,3,5, Sergio Rutella9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor cells have evolved complex strategies to escape immune surveillance, a process which involves NK cells and T lymphocytes, and various immunological factors. Indeed, tumor cells recruit immunosuppressive cells [including regulatory T-cells (Treg), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC)] and express factors such as PD-L1. Molecularly targeted therapies, such as imatinib, have off-target effects that may influence immune function. Imatinib has been shown to modulate multiple cell types involved in anti-cancer immune surveillance, with potentially detrimental or favorable outcomes. Imatinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) have dramatically changed disease course. Our study aimed to characterize the different populations of the immune system in patients with CML affected by their treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic myeloid leukemia; Gene expression profiling; Immune monitoring; Immunotherapy; Interferon
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31900171 PMCID: PMC6941328 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-02194-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Biodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients and controls
| Characteristics | CML patients | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TKI ( | TKI + IFN-α ( | ||
| Demographic features | |||
| Gender (%) | |||
| Male | 18 (54.5) | 4 (50.0) | 7 (35.0) |
| Female | 15 (45.5) | 4 (50.0) | 13 (65.0) |
| Age (years) | |||
| Median | 63 | 50 | 58 |
| Range | 37–84 | 34–62 | 30–89 |
| Clinical features | |||
| Age at diagnosis (years) | |||
| Median | 50 | 42 | |
| Range | 24–78 | 25–60 | |
| Time of disease (years) | |||
| Median | 11.2 | 3.4 | |
| Range | 1.3–22.7 | 2.1–24.1 | |
| Scoring systems | |||
| Sokal score | ( | ( | |
| Low risk (%) | 13 (40.6) | 4 (57.1) | |
| Intermediate risk (%) | 13 (40.6) | 1 (14.3) | |
| High risk (%) | 6 (18.8) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Euro score | ( | ( | |
| Low risk (%) | 14 (43.8) | 5 (71.4) | |
| Intermediate risk (%) | 17 (53.2) | 2 (28.6) | |
| High risk (%) | 1 (3.0) | – | |
| Eutos score | ( | ( | |
| Low risk (%) | 27 (81.8) | 1 (14.3) | |
| High risk (%) | 6 (18.2) | 6 (85.7) | |
| Type of TKI | |||
| Imatinib (%) | 26 (78.8) | 6 (75.0) | |
| Nilotinib (%) | 1 (3.0) | 2 (25.0) | |
| Dasatinib (%) | 2 (6.1) | – | |
| Bosutinib (%) | 3 (9.1) | – | |
| Ponatinib (%) | 1 (3.0) | – | |
Overview of immune system (OVIS)
| Cell populations | Controls ( | CML patients | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 95% CI | TKIs ( | TKIs plus IFN-α ( | ||||||
| Mean | 95% CI | Mean | 95% CI | ||||||
| Granulocytes | 3971.9 | (3195.1–4937.6) | 3752.5 | (3167.6–4445.3) | 1.000 | 4051.7 | (2872.1–5715.9) | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Monocytes | 328.7 | (261.2–413.6) | 381.5 | (319.0–456.2) | 0.930 | 466.4 | (324.4–670.7) | 0.326 | 0.973 |
| CD45low | 140.9 | (104.5–189.9) | 1.000 | ||||||
| Lymphocytes | 2059.4 | (1660.5–2554.1) | 1852.7 | (1566.9–2190.8) | 1.000 | ||||
| B cells | 241.9 | (176.2–332.1) | 147.9 | (115.6–189.3) | 0.052 | 171.6 | (104.0–283.1) | 0.751 | 1.000 |
| T cells | 1500.3 | (1207.0–1864.9) | 1324.3 | (1118.0–1568.7) | 1.000 | 0.060 | |||
| CD4+ | 1016.4 | (813.2–1270.4) | 758.0 | (637.1–901.7) | 0.104 | 0.105 | |||
| Naive | 358.5 | (264.0–486.9) | 230.7 | (181.8–292.7) | 0.067 | 0.573 | |||
| Central memory (CM) | 344.3 | (271.2–437.1) | 0.475 | ||||||
| Effector memory (EM) | 13.7 | (6.9–27.1) | 18.2 | (10.7–31.0) | 0.791 | 7.1 | (2.2–22.6) | 0.596 | 0.311 |
| EM CD45 RA+ (EMRA) | 4.2 | (2.1–8.1) | 4.6 | (1.5–14.3) | 0.988 | 0.289 | |||
| CD8+ | 207.1 | (152.5–281.4) | 327.7 | (258.2–416.0) | 0.055 | 193.2 | (119.0–313.7) | 0.968 | 0.132 |
| Naive | 42.9 | (29.1–63.2) | 51.7 | (38.2–69.8) | 0.730 | 57.2 | (31.0–105.5) | 0.708 | 0.952 |
| Central memory (CM) | 39.5 | (28.7–54.3) | 48.1 | (37.5–61.6) | 0.595 | 35.6 | (21.5–58.9) | 0.936 | 0.536 |
| Effector memory (EM) | 5.2 | (2.9–9.4) | 10.5 | (4.1–26.8) | 0.411 | 0.454 | |||
| EM CD45 RA+ (EMRA) | 13.3 | (7.5–23.6) | 23.0 | (9.3–57.2) | 0.566 | 0.060 | |||
| CD4+/CD8+ | 228.3 | (168.0–310.2) | 0.253 | ||||||
| NK cells | 243.4 | (175.1–338.3) | 233.4 | (180.7–301.6) | 1.000 | 159.1 | (94.6–267.7) | 0.517 | 0.573 |
| CD56Dim | 243.3 | (174.0–340.2) | 266.2 | (205.1–345.6) | 0.906 | 135.8 | (80.0–230.7) | 0.159 | 0.067 |
| CD56Bright | 11.2 | (7.3–17.3) | 6.3 | (4.5–8.8) | 0.092 | 28.6 | (14.5 - 56.5) | 0.060 | |
| CD56+ T cells | 60.6 | (36.9–99.6) | 41.4 | (28.1–61.0) | 0.697 | ||||
| CD4+ | 14.0 | (8.7–22.5) | 7.9 | (5.4–11.5) | 0.154 | ||||
| CD8+ | 15.8 | (9.3–26.8) | 19.0 | (12.4–29.1) | 0.848 | 6.6 | (2.5–17.3) | 0.259 | 0.119 |
| CD4+/CD8+ | 22.0 | (13.4–36.3) | 0.111 | ||||||
p value: statistical comparison vs control. p value # statistical comparison between TKIs and TKIs plus IFN-α. Cell populations with p < 0.050 are highlighted in italic
Fig. 1Frequency of immune cell types in patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α, and in healthy controls. a Pie charts summarizing the distribution of T cells, CD4+ and CD8+ major subsets, and NK cells in the blood of CML patients and healthy controls. TCM = central memory T cell; TEM = effector memory T cell; TEMRA = terminally differentiated, effector memory T cell. b Serum IL-21 levels in a subgroup of patients receiving either TKIs alone of TKIs in combination with IFN-α, and in healthy controls. Results were compared with one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test
Fig. 2Regulatory T cells (Treg) in patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α, and in healthy controls. a Gating strategy used to identify blood Treg cells within the CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell compartment. b Percentage of CD4+ Treg cells in different patient groups (TKIs group, n = 33; TKIs plus IFN-α group, n = 8) and in healthy controls (n = 20). c Frequency of CD4+ Treg cells in patients with CML receiving imatinib (n = 26) or 2nd generation TKIs (n = 7). d Frequency of CD8+ Treg cells in patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α, and in healthy controls. The p values in the figure reflect statistically significant differences among study groups
Fig. 3Programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α, and in healthy controls. PD-1 expression on CD4+ (a, b) and CD8+ T cells (c) from CML patients stratified by type of TKI used (imatinib or 2nd generation TKI). The p values in the figure reflect statistically significant differences among study groups
Fig. 4Frequency of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α. a Gating strategy for the identification of granulocytic MDSCs (Gr-MDSCs: CD45+CD11bbrightCD33dimCD15+Arg1+) and monocytic-like MDSCs (Mo-MDSCs: CD45+CD11bbrightCD33brightCD15negArg1neg). The frequency of Gr-MDSCs (b), Mo-MDSCs (c) and the ratio of Gr-MDSCs to Mo-MDSCs (d) are shown in CML patients and in healthy controls. Results are summarized as the mean ± SEM. The p values in the figure reflect statistically significant differences among study groups
Fig. 5Frequency of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) in patients with CML receiving imatinib or 2nd generation TKIs. The frequency of Gr-MDSCs (a), Mo-MDSCs (b) and the ratio of Gr-MDSCs to Mo-MDSCs (c) are shown in CML patients treated with imatinib or with 2nd generation TKIs. Results are summarized as the mean ± SEM. The p values in the figure reflect statistically significant differences among study groups
Fig. 6Gene expression profiling of blood samples from patients with CML receiving TKIs, either alone or in combination with IFN-α. a Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of immune cell type-specific scores in patients treated with IFN-α and TKIs or with TKIs alone. Data were analyzed and visualized using an on-line resource (Morpheus; Broad Institute, MA, USA). b Correlation matrix (Pearson correlation coefficients) of immune cell type-specific scores in patients treated with TKIs plus IFN-α or with TKIs alone. Dark red denotes high correlation, dark blue denotes anti-correlation and white denotes a lack of correlation. c Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of signature scores in patients treated with IFN-α and TKIs or with TKIs alone. d Correlation matrix (Pearson correlation coefficients) of signature scores in patients treated with TKIs plus IFN-α or with TKIs alone. Dark red denotes high correlation, dark blue denotes anti-correlation and white denotes a lack of correlation. e Volcano plot showing differentially expressed (DE) genes in patients receiving IFN-α and TKIs compared with patients treated with TKIs alone. The top DE genes (linear fold-change > 4 or < 2 with a p value < 0.01) are highlighted in red (up-regulated) and green (down-regulated). The dotted horizontal lines indicate p values < 0.05 and < 0.01