| Literature DB >> 31956474 |
Richert Iseulys1, Gomez-Brouchet Anne2, Bouvier Corinne3, Du Bouexic De Pinieux Gonzague4, Karanian Marie5, Blay Jean-Yves1,5, Dutour Aurélie1.
Abstract
Survival rate for Chondrosarcoma (CHS) is at a standstill, more effective treatments are urgently needed. Consequently, a better understanding of CHS biology and its immune environment is crucial to identify new prognostic factors and therapeutic targets. Here, we exhaustively describe the immune landscape of conventional and dedifferentiated CHS. Using IHC and molecular analyses (RT-qPCR), we mapped the expression of immune cell markers (CD3, CD8, CD68, CD163) and immune checkpoints (ICPs) from a cohort of 27 conventional and 49 dedifferentiated CHS. The impact of the density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and immune checkpoints (ICPs) on clinical outcome were analyzed. We reveal that TAMs are the main immune population in CHS. Focusing on dedifferentiated CHS, we found that immune infiltrate composition is correlated with patient outcome, a high CD68+/CD8+ ratio being an independent poor prognostic factor (p < 0.01), and high CD68+ levels being associated with the presence of metastases at diagnosis (p < 0.05). Among the ICPs evaluated, CSF1R, B7H3, SIRPA, TIM3 and LAG3 were expressed at the mRNA level in both CHS subtypes. Furthermore, PDL1 expression was confirmed by IHC exclusively in dedifferentiated CHS (42.6% of the patients) and CSF1R was expressed by TAMs in 89.7% of dedifferentiated CHS (vs 62.9% in conventional). Our results show that the immune infiltrate of CHS is mainly composed of immunosuppressive actors favoring tumor progression. Our results indicate that dedifferentiated CHS could be eligible for anti-PDL1 therapy and more importantly immunomodulation through CSF1R + macrophages could be a promising therapeutic approach for both CHS subtypes.Entities:
Keywords: APC, Antigen Presenting Cells; B7H3, B7 superfamily member-H3; CD, Cluster of Differentiation; CHS, Chondrosarcoma; CSF1, Colony Stimulating Factor 1; CSF1R, Colony Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor; CTLA4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated; HH, hedgehog; HLA, Human Leucocytes Antigen; ICOS, Inducible Costimulator; ICOSL, inducible costimulator ligand; ICP, Immune checkpoint; IDH, isocitrate deshydrogenase; LAG3, Lymphocyte activation gene-3; MDR1, Multi Drug Resistance 1; PD1, Programmed death 1; PDL1, Programmed Death Ligand 1; SIRPa, Signal regulatory protein alpha; SMO, Smoothened Homolog Precursor; TAMs, Tumor Associated Macrophages; TILs, Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes; TIM3, T cell immunoglobulin mucin; Treg, T regulator lymphocytes; mTOR, mammalian Target Of Rapamycin
Year: 2019 PMID: 31956474 PMCID: PMC6961717 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2019.100271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Bone Oncol ISSN: 2212-1366 Impact factor: 4.072
Clinicopathological data of 27 FFPE conventional and 29 dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma of the validated cohort used for survival analyses
| Validated cohort | C CHS | DD CHS |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 17(63%) | 19 (66%) |
| Female | 10(37%) | 9 (31%) |
| Unknown | 1 (3%) | |
| Median | 56 | 57.5 |
| Range | 17–80 | 44–90 |
| Extremities | 17 (63%) | 15 (52%) |
| Axial and pelvis | 10 (37%) | 8 (28%) |
| Unknown | 6 (20%) | |
| < 8 cm | 11 (41%) | 8 (7%) |
| >8 cm | 16 (59%) | 10 (35%) |
| Unknown | 11 (38%) | |
| M− | 16 (59%) | 11(38%) |
| M+ | 8 (30%) | 16(55%) |
| Unknown | 3 (1%) | 2(7%) |
Fig. 1TIL and TAM infiltrates in DD CHS are prognostic factors. A. Biomarker staining results. B. Representative images of primary dedifferentiated CHS with low and high CD3 (cut off: 15%), CD8 (cut off 5%), CD68 (cut off 20%) and CD163 (cut off 50%) infiltrates (magnification X200). Frames correspond to the high-power field of each picture (magnification X400). C. Kaplan Maier survival analyses according to CD3, CD8, CD68 and CD163 infiltration status. Patients were divided into two groups depending on immune marker expression (high or low), the cutoff value being the median expression of each immune marker. A high CD3 and CD8 infiltrate was associated with better survival (p < 0.05), whereas a high CD68/CD8 infiltrate was associated with a poorer survival (p < 0.005). (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.005). TIL tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; CTL cytotoxic lymphocytes; TAM tumor associated macrophages.
Fig. 2The CD68/CD8 ratio is a bad prognosis factor in dedifferentiated CHS. A. A high CD68/CD8 ratio is associated with a poorer overall survival (**p < 0.005) B. In a multivariate Cox regression model including age, gender and metastatic status, a high CD68/CD8 ratio was confirmed to be an independent bad prognostic factor of overall survival (HR = 6.17, p = 0.00973).
Fig. 3The histological subtypes of the dedifferentiated compartment is associated with immune cell density and impacts patient survival. A. Dedifferentiated CHS presenting an osteosarcoma compartment with a higher density of CD68+ TAM (77.8% vs 31.8% in other dedifferentiated subtypes) and a higher CD68/CD8 ratio (72.2% vs 22.7% for other type of differentiation). B. Survival analyses according to the histological subtypes. We confirmed only for patients presenting an osteosarcoma differentiation that a high density of CD68+ TAMs tended to be associated with poor survival as opposed to other types of differentiation.
Fig. 4A high TAM density is associated with the development of metastasis in dedifferentiated CHS. A. Kaplan Maier MPFS (metastasis progression-free progression survival) were established according to CD3, CD8, CD68 and CD163 infiltration. TAM (CD68+) is associated with poorer MPFS (*p = 0.049). p Value obtained by log-rank test. (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.005). B. TAM CD68+ and TAM CD163+ density are associated with the presence of metastasis at diagnosis.
Fig. 5Immune checkpoint expression in conventional and dedifferentiated CHS. A. Molecular analyses of immune checkpoint (ICP) expression in conventional CHS (n = 16) and dedifferentiated CHS (n = 7) showed that PDL1 and CTLA4 were expressed at low levels in CHS, while OX40/OX40L, B7H3, CSF1/CSF1R and TIM3 were highly expressed. ICP expression was normalized against housekeeping genes (GADPDH/RPLP0) B. B7H3, PDL1, CSF1, CSF1R and B7H3 expression in CHS. Using positive and negative control cell lines, we evaluated the level of expression of ICP in CHS. This comparison confirmed a high expression of B7H3 (NS) and CSF1R (p < 0.05). In both CHS subtypes while PDL1 was only expressed in dedifferentiated CHS (NS). p Value was calculated between the positive control and the samples
Fig. 6PD1 and PDL1 expression in conventional and dedifferentiated CHS. PDL1 and PD1 expression analyzed by IHC. Representative images of PDL1+ tumor, PD1+ lymphocytes IHC staining and percentage positivity of those ICPs considering the subtypes and the grade. D, Impact of ICP expression on patient survival in dedifferentiated CHS. PDL1 expression was not associated with overall survival.
Fig. 7CSF1R expression in both subtypes of CHS. CSF1R expression was analyzed by IHC. A. CSF1R staining was localized at the membrane of macrophages similarly to CD68 staining. B. CSF1R positive cases based on CHS subtype and grade. C. Percentage distribution of staining density of CSF1R. The percentage of patients expressing a high density of CSF1R+ TAMs was more important in the dedifferentiated subtypes than in the conventional (54% vs 34%). D. Prognostic value of CSF1R in CHS The expression of CSF1R was not associated either with overall survival nor MPFS in both subtypes. E. CSF1R+ TAMs are associated with the metastatic status at diagnosis in dedifferentiated CHS.