You Ge1, Feiran Wei2, Guoping Du3, Gaoqiang Fei1, Wei Li1, Xiaoshan Li4, Jinjin Chu1, Pingmin Wei5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, 87 Dingjiaqiao Road, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China. 2. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Zhongda Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China. 3. Southeast University Hospital, Nanjing, China. 4. Department of Lung Transplant Center, The Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, 87 Dingjiaqiao Road, Nanjing, 210009, Jiangsu, China. mpw_1963@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic alterations have been proven to be the promising biomarkers for ICI response. However, sex biases in genetic alterations have been often ignored in the field of immunotherapy, which might specially influence the anticancer immunity and immunotherapy efficacy in male or female patients. Here, we have systematically evaluated the effect of the sex biases in somatic mutation of gastric cancer (GC) patients on the anticancer immunity and clinical benefit to immunotherapy. METHODS: Genomic and transcriptomic data of gastric cancer were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). We also obtained the genomic and clinical data of a MSKCC ICI-treated cohort from cbioportal database. GC male and female-derived tumor somatic mutation profiles were compared by maftools R package. Single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) was conducted to calculate the score of the anticancer immunity indicators including IFN-γ signaling, cytolytic activity (CYT) and antigen presenting machinery (APM). RESULTS: ATRX was found to mutate more frequently in female GC patients compared to male patients (FDR = 0.0108). Female GC patients with ATRX mutation manifested significantly more MSI-high subtypes, increased TMB and PDL1 expression as well as higher scores of IFN-γ signaling, CYT and APM. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) has shown that ATRX mutation might enhance the immunogenicity and anticancer immunity through affecting DNA damage repair pathways. In the ICI-treated cohort from MSKCC, GC patients with ATRX mutation were associated with prolonged overall survival. When stratifying the entire ICI-treated cohort by sex, female patients with ATRX mutation obtained significantly better survival benefits than that of ATRX mutant male patients (Female patients, HR of ATRX MT vs WT = 0.636, 95%CI = 0.455-0.890, P = 0.023; Male patients, HR of ATRX MT vs WT = 0.929, 95%CI = 0.596-1.362, P = 0.712). CONCLUSIONS: ATRX mutation might serve as a potential predictive biomarker for favorable clinical benefit to ICI in female GC patients. ATRX mutation could be applied in combination with other biomarkers of ICI response to better identify the female GC patients who will derive greater benefits from ICI therapy.
BACKGROUND: Genetic alterations have been proven to be the promising biomarkers for ICI response. However, sex biases in genetic alterations have been often ignored in the field of immunotherapy, which might specially influence the anticancer immunity and immunotherapy efficacy in male or female patients. Here, we have systematically evaluated the effect of the sex biases in somatic mutation of gastric cancer (GC) patients on the anticancer immunity and clinical benefit to immunotherapy. METHODS: Genomic and transcriptomic data of gastric cancer were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). We also obtained the genomic and clinical data of a MSKCC ICI-treated cohort from cbioportal database. GC male and female-derived tumor somatic mutation profiles were compared by maftools R package. Single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) was conducted to calculate the score of the anticancer immunity indicators including IFN-γ signaling, cytolytic activity (CYT) and antigen presenting machinery (APM). RESULTS:ATRX was found to mutate more frequently in female GC patients compared to male patients (FDR = 0.0108). Female GC patients with ATRX mutation manifested significantly more MSI-high subtypes, increased TMB and PDL1 expression as well as higher scores of IFN-γ signaling, CYT and APM. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) has shown that ATRX mutation might enhance the immunogenicity and anticancer immunity through affecting DNA damage repair pathways. In the ICI-treated cohort from MSKCC, GC patients with ATRX mutation were associated with prolonged overall survival. When stratifying the entire ICI-treated cohort by sex, female patients with ATRX mutation obtained significantly better survival benefits than that of ATRX mutant male patients (Female patients, HR of ATRX MT vs WT = 0.636, 95%CI = 0.455-0.890, P = 0.023; Male patients, HR of ATRX MT vs WT = 0.929, 95%CI = 0.596-1.362, P = 0.712). CONCLUSIONS:ATRX mutation might serve as a potential predictive biomarker for favorable clinical benefit to ICI in female GC patients. ATRX mutation could be applied in combination with other biomarkers of ICI response to better identify the female GC patients who will derive greater benefits from ICI therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
ATRX mutation; Anticancer immunity; Gastric cancer; Sex biases
Authors: Yang Liu; Nilay S Sethi; Toshinori Hinoue; Barbara G Schneider; Andrew D Cherniack; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Jose A Seoane; Farshad Farshidfar; Reanne Bowlby; Mirazul Islam; Jaegil Kim; Walid Chatila; Rehan Akbani; Rupa S Kanchi; Charles S Rabkin; Joseph E Willis; Kenneth K Wang; Shannon J McCall; Lopa Mishra; Akinyemi I Ojesina; Susan Bullman; Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu; Alexander J Lazar; Ryo Sakai; Vésteinn Thorsson; Adam J Bass; Peter W Laird Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Edward B Garon; Naiyer A Rizvi; Rina Hui; Natasha Leighl; Ani S Balmanoukian; Joseph Paul Eder; Amita Patnaik; Charu Aggarwal; Matthew Gubens; Leora Horn; Enric Carcereny; Myung-Ju Ahn; Enriqueta Felip; Jong-Seok Lee; Matthew D Hellmann; Omid Hamid; Jonathan W Goldman; Jean-Charles Soria; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Ruth Z Rutledge; Jin Zhang; Jared K Lunceford; Reshma Rangwala; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Charlotte Roach; Kenneth Emancipator; Leena Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fabio Conforti; Laura Pala; Vincenzo Bagnardi; Tommaso De Pas; Marco Martinetti; Giuseppe Viale; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Robert L Ferris; George Blumenschein; Jerome Fayette; Joel Guigay; A Dimitrios Colevas; Lisa Licitra; Kevin Harrington; Stefan Kasper; Everett E Vokes; Caroline Even; Francis Worden; Nabil F Saba; Lara C Iglesias Docampo; Robert Haddad; Tamara Rordorf; Naomi Kiyota; Makoto Tahara; Manish Monga; Mark Lynch; William J Geese; Justin Kopit; James W Shaw; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Helen Hansen; Hugues Sicotte; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Lucie S McCoy; Gobinda Sarkar; Arie Perry; Caterina Giannini; Tarik Tihan; Mitchel S Berger; Joseph L Wiemels; Paige M Bracci; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Jennifer Clarke; Jennie W Taylor; Tracy Luks; John K Wiencke; Robert B Jenkins; Margaret R Wrensch Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 15.887
Authors: Aaron M Newman; Chih Long Liu; Michael R Green; Andrew J Gentles; Weiguo Feng; Yue Xu; Chuong D Hoang; Maximilian Diehn; Ash A Alizadeh Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Zachary R Chalmers; Caitlin F Connelly; David Fabrizio; Laurie Gay; Siraj M Ali; Riley Ennis; Alexa Schrock; Brittany Campbell; Adam Shlien; Juliann Chmielecki; Franklin Huang; Yuting He; James Sun; Uri Tabori; Mark Kennedy; Daniel S Lieber; Steven Roels; Jared White; Geoffrey A Otto; Jeffrey S Ross; Levi Garraway; Vincent A Miller; Phillip J Stephens; Garrett M Frampton Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: David Clynes; Clare Jelinska; Barbara Xella; Helena Ayyub; Stephen Taylor; Matthew Mitson; Csanád Z Bachrati; Douglas R Higgs; Richard J Gibbons Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240