| Literature DB >> 32461343 |
Thomas LaSalle1, Emily E Austin1, Grant Rigney1, Eric Wehrenberg-Klee1, Sarah Nesti1, Benjamin Larimer2, Umar Mahmood2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer immunotherapy research is expanding to include a more robust understanding of the mechanisms of treatment response and resistance. Identification of drivers of pro-tumor and anti-tumor immunity during treatment offers new strategies for effective alternative or combination immunotherapies. Currently, tissue or blood samples are collected and analyzed, then dichotomized based on clinical end points that may occur months or years after tissue is collected. While overall survival is ultimately the desired clinical outcome, this dichotomization fails to incorporate the nuances that may occur during an anti-tumor response. By failing to directly measure immune activation at the time of sampling, tumors may be misclassified and potentially obscure important biological information. Non-invasive techniques, such as positron emission tomography (PET), allow for global and quantitative measurements of cancer specific processes and are widely used clinically to help manage disease.Entities:
Keywords: PET; PET, functional imaging; PET, ligand studies
Year: 2020 PMID: 32461343 PMCID: PMC7254099 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2019-000291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 13.751
Figure 1(A) Maximal intensity projections of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 treated or vehicle CT26 tumor-bearing mice demonstrating tumor uptake and clearance of the GZP positron emission tomography (PET) imaging agent. (B) Average target-to-background (TBR) (n=4) of treated and vehicle CT26 tumor-bearing mice on days 6, 9 and 12 post-tumor inoculation, where error bars denote SE measurements (SEM). (C) Parametric linear correlation of released granzyme as denoted by GZP PET TBR compared with intracellular granzyme B detected by flow cytometry. The same analyzes were performed in MC38 tumors (D–F). *P<0.05.
Figure 2Volcano plots of the −log10 of the p value of the linear correlation between GZP positron emission tomography (PET) signal and individual cellular phenotypes quantified by flow cytometry vs the normalized slope (GZP PET) of the same correlation. P values were determined by the probability of a non-zero slope for the linear correlation. Correlations found in the tumor are shown on the top, and those from the tumor-draining lymph node are on the bottom, with a comparison of moderately immunogenic CT26 tumors (left) and highly immunogenic MC38 (right) tumors shown side-by-side. Points with a p value <0.05 are labeled, red dots correspond to negative GZP PET correlations, and green dots correspond to positive GZP PET correlations. Bolded labels indicate those that are unique to a specific correlation, gray and italicized labels indicate those that are found in multiple correlations.
Figure 3Cytokine and chemokine correlations for CT26 (left) and MC38 (right) tumors (top) and lymph nodes (bottom). Volcano plots were generated using the same methodology and labeled using the same schema as described in figure 2.
Figure 4Schematic of proposed mechanism for stratifying patients using GZP PET imaging, along with potential therapeutic approaches dictated by GZP positron emission tomography (PET)-based tissue analysis.