| Literature DB >> 33665361 |
Jialin Meng1, Xiaofan Lu2, Yujie Zhou3, Meng Zhang1,4, Qintao Ge1, Jun Zhou1, Zongyao Hao1, Shenglin Gao5, Fangrong Yan2, Chaozhao Liang1.
Abstract
Immunotherapy is a potential way to save the lives of patients with bladder cancer, but it only benefits approximately 20% of them. A total of 4,028 bladder cancer patients were collected for this study. Unsupervised non-negative matrix factorization and the nearest template prediction algorithms were employed for the classification. We identified the immune and non-immune classes from The Cancer Genome Atlas Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma (TCGA-BLCA) training cohort. The 150 most differentially expressed genes between these two classes were extracted, and the classification reappeared in 20 validation cohorts. For the activated and exhausted subgroups, a stromal activation signature was assessed by the NTP algorithm. Patients in the immune class showed highly enriched signatures of immunocytes, while the exhausted subgroup also exhibited activated transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1, and cancer-associated extracellular matrix signatures. Patients in the immune-activated subgroup showed a lower genetic alteration and better overall survival. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was more beneficial for the immune-activated subgroup, while immune checkpoint blockade therapy plus a TGF-β inhibitor or an EP300 inhibitor might achieve greater efficacy for patients in the immune-exhausted subgroup. Novel immune molecular classifier was identified for the innovative immunotherapy of patients with bladder cancer.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; immune checkpoint blockade; immunotherapy; non-negative matrix factorization
Year: 2021 PMID: 33665361 PMCID: PMC7900642 DOI: 10.1016/j.omto.2021.02.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Ther Oncolytics ISSN: 2372-7705 Impact factor: 7.200
Figure 1Flow chart of the analyses performed in this study
NMF, non-negative matrix factorization; TCGA-BLCA, The Cancer Genome Atlas Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma; TILs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; CNA, copy number alteration; TMB, tumor mutation burden.
Figure 2Recognition of the immune classes by the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) algorithm
(A) Nine modules were generated from the NMF algorithm, and the module gathered patients with high immune enrichment score were recognized as the immune module. (B) Heatmap showing the top 150 exemplar genes expression among immune-enriched and non-immune-enriched clusters, divided by consensus clustering. (C) The multidimensional scaling random forest further modified the clusters to immune and non-immune classes. (D) The distributions of patients in different NMF modules, immune module weight, exemplar gene clustering, final immune classes, and immune enrichment score.
Figure 3The diverse immune characteristics and heterogeneity of genetic phenotypes of non-immune class, immune-activated subgroup, and immune-exhausted subgroup
(A) Division and characterization of three immunophenotypes. CYT, cytolytic activity score; TITR, tumor-infiltrating Tregs; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cell; TLS, tertiary lymphoid structure; C-ECM, cancer-associated extracellular matrix. (B) Difference of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte abundance. (C) Difference in the PD-L1 mRNA expression level. (D) Difference in gene copy number alterations, including amplification and deletion, among arm levels and focal levels. (E) Difference the tumor mutation burden. (F) Difference in tumor neoantigens. (G) Specific mutant genes in the immune-activated subgroup. (H) Specific mutant genes in the immune-exhausted subgroup. WT, wild-type; IM-Act, immune-activated subgroup; IM-Exh, immune-exhausted subgroup.
Summary of the clinicopathological parameters of the TCGA-BLCA, GSE32894, and E-MTAB-1803 cohorts
| TCGA-BLCA (n = 408) | GSE32894 (n = 308) | E-MTAB-1803 (n = 70) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| ≤70 | 230 | 143 | 42 |
| >70 | 178 | 165 | 28 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 301 | 228 | 59 |
| Female | 107 | 80 | 11 |
| Stage | |||
| Ta | – | 116 | – |
| T1 | 11 | 97 | – |
| T2 | 191 | 85 | 24 |
| T3 | 157 | 7 | 28 |
| T4 | 43 | 1 | 18 |
| Grade | |||
| G1/low | 21 | 48 | – |
| G2 | – | 103 | 4 |
| G3/high | 384 | 154 | 66 |
| Smoking | |||
| No | 109 | – | – |
| Yes | 286 | – | – |
| Status | |||
| Alive | 229 | 199 | 28 |
| Dead | 177 | 25 | 42 |
Six samples lacked T stage data in the TCGA database, and two samples lacked data in GEO: GSE32894.
Three samples lacked grade data in the TCGA database, and three samples lacked date in GEO: GSE32894.
Two samples lacked alive status data in the TCGA database, and 84 samples lacked data in GEO: GSE32894.
Summary of the detailed information of the enrolled bladder cancer cohorts
| Dataset | Data array | Patients | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TCGA-BLCA | RNA sequencing | 408 | |
| E-MTAB-4321 | RNA sequencing | 476 | |
| IMvigor210 | Illumina HiSeq 2500 | 348 | |
| GSE32894 | Illumina HumanHT-12 V3.0 expression beadchip | 308 | |
| GSE83586 | Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array | 307 | |
| GSE87304 | Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array | 305 | |
| GSE128702 | Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array | 256 | |
| GSE13507 | Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip | 164 | |
| GSE129871 | Illumina HiSeq 2000 (Homo sapiens) | 158 | |
| GSE120736 | Illumina HumanHT-12 V4.0 expression beadchip | 145 | |
| GSE39016 | Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array | 141 | |
| GSE128701 | Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array | 136 | |
| GSE124035 | Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST Array | 133 | |
| GSE86411 | Illumina HumanHT-12 WG-DASL V4.0 R2 expression beadchip | 132 | |
| GSE48276 | Illumina HumanHT-12 WG-DASL V4.0 R2 expression beadchip | 116 | |
| GSE128192 | Illumina HumanHT-12 WG-DASL V4.0 R2 expression beadchip | 112 | |
| GSE31684 | Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array | 93 | |
| GSE134292 | Illumina HiSeq 4000 (Homo sapiens) | 80 | |
| GSE93527 | Affymetrix Human Transcriptome Array 2.0 | 79 | |
| E-MTAB-1803 | Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 | 70 | |
| GSE69795 | Illumina HumanHT-12 WG-DASL V4.0 R2 expression beadchip | 61 |
The distribution of three newly defined immunophenotypes in all enrolled cohorts
| Dataset | No. of patients | Immunophenotype distribution, n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immune activated | Immune exhausted | Non-immune | ||
| TCGA-BLCA | 408 | 45 (11.03) | 110 (26.96) | 253 (62.01) |
| E-MTAB-4321 | 476 | 74 (15.55) | 111 (23.32) | 291 (61.13) |
| IMvigor210 | 348 | 85 (24.43) | 142 (40.8) | 121 (34.77) |
| GSE32894 | 308 | 42 (13.64) | 79 (25.65) | 187 (60.71) |
| GSE83586 | 307 | 63 (20.52) | 93 (30.29) | 151 (49.19) |
| GSE87304 | 305 | 59 (19.34) | 85 (27.87) | 161 (52.79) |
| GSE128702 | 256 | 72 (28.13) | 88 (34.38) | 96 (37.50) |
| GSE13507 | 164 | 23 (14.02) | 36 (21.95) | 105 (64.02) |
| GSE129871 | 158 | 26 (16.46) | 27 (17.09) | 105 (66.46) |
| GSE120736 | 145 | 21 (14.48) | 35 (24.14) | 89 (61.38) |
| GSE39016 | 141 | 16 (11.35) | 31 (21.99) | 94 (66.67) |
| GSE128701 | 136 | 42 (30.88) | 34 (25.00) | 60 (44.12) |
| GSE124035 | 133 | 32 (24.06) | 54 (40.6) | 47 (35.34) |
| GSE86411 | 132 | 22 (16.67) | 36 (27.27) | 74 (56.06) |
| GSE48276 | 116 | 24 (20.69) | 29 (25.00) | 63 (54.31) |
| GSE128192 | 112 | 26 (23.21) | 36 (32.14) | 50 (44.64) |
| GSE31684 | 93 | 14 (15.05) | 34 (36.56) | 45 (48.39) |
| GSE134292 | 80 | 13 (16.25) | 16 (20.00) | 51 (63.75) |
| GSE93527 | 79 | 13 (16.46) | 15 (18.99) | 51 (64.56) |
| E-MTAB-1803 | 70 | 13 (18.57) | 19 (27.14) | 38 (54.29) |
| GSE69795 | 61 | 9 (14.75) | 19 (31.15) | 33 (54.10) |
Figure 4The immunophenotypes in the IMvigor210 cohort reflected the different responses to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy
(A) Reappearing three immunophenotypes in IMvigor210 cohort. (B) The distribution of the best confirmed overall response to anti-PD-L1 treatment in the three immunophenotypes. (C) The distribution of complete response and progressive disease in the three immunophenotypes. Non-IM, non-immune class; IM-Act, immune-activated subgroup; IM-Exh, immune-exhausted subgroup.
Figure 5Predicting the response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy and revealed diverse overall survival outcomes in the three immunophenotypes
(A) Prediction results of the response to anti-PD-L1 therapy. (B) Prediction results of the response to anti-CTAL-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy. (C) Different overall survival outcomes in the three immunophenotypes.