Ben Wan1, Renxian Wang1, Jingjun Nie1, Yuyang Sun1, Bowen Zhang1, Weifeng Liu2, Dafu Chen1. 1. Laboratory of Bone Tissue Engineering, Beijing Laboratory of Biomedical Materials, Beijing Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Beijing JiShuiTan Hospital, Beijing 100035, China. 2. Depatment of Orthopaedic Oncology Surgery, Beijing JiShuiTan Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100035, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteosarcoma (OS) patients have a poor response to immunotherapy due to the sheer complexity of the immune system and the nuances of the tumor-immune microenvironment. Methodology. To gain insights into the immune heterogeneity of OS, we identified robust clusters of patients based on the immune gene expression profiles of OS patients in the TARGET database and assessed their reproducibility in an independent cohort collected from the GEO database. The association of comprehensive molecular characterization with reproducible immune subtypes was accessed with ANOVA. Furthermore, we visualized the distribution of individual patients in a tree structure by the graph structure learning-based dimensionality reduction algorithm. RESULTS: We found that 87 OS samples can be divided into 5 immune subtypes, and each of them was associated with distinct clinical outcomes. The immune subtypes also demonstrated widely different patterns in tumor genetic aberrations, tumor-infiltrating, immune cell composition, and cytokine profiles. The immune landscape of OS uncovered the significant intracluster heterogeneity within each subtype and depicted a continuous immune spectrum across patients. CONCLUSION: The established five immune subtypes in our study suggested immune heterogeneity in OS patients and may provide optimal individual immunotherapy for patients exhibiting OS.
BACKGROUND: Osteosarcoma (OS) patients have a poor response to immunotherapy due to the sheer complexity of the immune system and the nuances of the tumor-immune microenvironment. Methodology. To gain insights into the immune heterogeneity of OS, we identified robust clusters of patients based on the immune gene expression profiles of OS patients in the TARGET database and assessed their reproducibility in an independent cohort collected from the GEO database. The association of comprehensive molecular characterization with reproducible immune subtypes was accessed with ANOVA. Furthermore, we visualized the distribution of individual patients in a tree structure by the graph structure learning-based dimensionality reduction algorithm. RESULTS: We found that 87 OS samples can be divided into 5 immune subtypes, and each of them was associated with distinct clinical outcomes. The immune subtypes also demonstrated widely different patterns in tumor genetic aberrations, tumor-infiltrating, immune cell composition, and cytokine profiles. The immune landscape of OS uncovered the significant intracluster heterogeneity within each subtype and depicted a continuous immune spectrum across patients. CONCLUSION: The established five immune subtypes in our study suggested immune heterogeneity in OS patients and may provide optimal individual immunotherapy for patients exhibiting OS.
Authors: Carolin Pfannstiel; Pamela L Strissel; Katherine B Chiappinelli; Danijel Sikic; Sven Wach; Ralph M Wirtz; Adrian Wullweber; Helge Taubert; Johannes Breyer; Wolfgang Otto; Thomas Worst; Maximilian Burger; Bernd Wullich; Christian Bolenz; Nicole Fuhrich; Carol I Geppert; Veronika Weyerer; Robert Stoehr; Simone Bertz; Bastian Keck; Franziska Erlmeier; Philipp Erben; Arndt Hartmann; Reiner Strick; Markus Eckstein Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Hussein A Tawbi; Melissa Burgess; Vanessa Bolejack; Brian A Van Tine; Scott M Schuetze; James Hu; Sandra D'Angelo; Steven Attia; Richard F Riedel; Dennis A Priebat; Sujana Movva; Lara E Davis; Scott H Okuno; Damon R Reed; John Crowley; Lisa H Butterfield; Ruth Salazar; Jaime Rodriguez-Canales; Alexander J Lazar; Ignacio I Wistuba; Laurence H Baker; Robert G Maki; Denise Reinke; Shreyaskumar Patel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Chia-Chin Wu; Hannah C Beird; J Andrew Livingston; Shailesh Advani; Akash Mitra; Shaolong Cao; Alexandre Reuben; Davis Ingram; Wei-Lien Wang; Zhenlin Ju; Cheuk Hong Leung; Heather Lin; Youyun Zheng; Jason Roszik; Wenyi Wang; Shreyaskumar Patel; Robert S Benjamin; Neeta Somaiah; Anthony P Conley; Gordon B Mills; Patrick Hwu; Richard Gorlick; Alexander Lazar; Najat C Daw; Valerae Lewis; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Pratistha Koirala; Michael E Roth; Jonathan Gill; Sajida Piperdi; Jordan M Chinai; David S Geller; Bang H Hoang; Amy Park; Michael A Fremed; Xingxing Zang; Richard Gorlick Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Richard A Moffitt; Raoud Marayati; Elizabeth L Flate; Keith E Volmar; S Gabriela Herrera Loeza; Katherine A Hoadley; Naim U Rashid; Lindsay A Williams; Samuel C Eaton; Alexander H Chung; Jadwiga K Smyla; Judy M Anderson; Hong Jin Kim; David J Bentrem; Mark S Talamonti; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Michael A Hollingsworth; Jen Jen Yeh Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 38.330