Hongxian Zhang1, Jiwen Song2, Junqiang Dong3, Zhuo Liu1, Lixuan Lin4, Bing Wang5, Qiang Ma6, Lulin Ma1. 1. Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Urology, Shanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Taiyuan, China. 3. Department of Urology, Heze Municipal Hospital, Heze, China. 4. Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 5. Department of Oncology, Wuhan No.1 Hospital, Wuhan, China. 6. Department of Oncology, People's Hospital of Xintai City, Xintai, China.
Abstract
Background: The efficiency of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in bladder cancer (BLCA) treatment has been widely validated; however, the tumor response to ICIs was generally low. It is critical and urgent to find biomarkers that can predict tumor response to ICIs. The tumor microenvironment (TME), which may play important roles to either dampen or enhance immune responses, has been widely concerned. Methods: The cancer genome atlas BLCA (TCGA-BLCA) cohort (n = 400) was used in this study. Based on the proportions of 22 types of immune cells calculated by CIBERSORT, TME was classified by K-means Clustering and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were determined. Based on DEGs, patients were classified into three groups, and cluster signature genes were identified after reducing redundant genes. Then TMEscore was calculated based on cluster signature genes, and the samples were classified to two subtypes. We performed somatic mutation and copy number variation analysis to identify the genetic characteristics of the two subtypes. Correlation analysis was performed to explore the correlation between TMEscore and the tumor response to ICIs as well as the prognosis of BLCA. Results: According to the proportions of immune cells, two TME clusters were determined, and 1,144 DEGs and 138 cluster signature genes were identified. Based on cluster signature genes, samples were classified into TMEscore-high (n = 199) and TMEscore-low (n = 201) subtypes. Survival analysis showed patients with TMEscore-high phenotype had better prognosis. Among the 45 differentially expressed micro-RNAs (miRNAs) and 1,033 differentially expressed messenger RNAs (mRNAs) between the two subtypes, 16 miRNAs and 287 mRNAs had statistically significant impact on the prognosis of BLCA. Furthermore, there were 94 genes with significant differences between the two subtypes, and they were enriched in RTK-RAS, NOTCH, WNT, Hippo, and PI3K pathways. The Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) score of TMEscore-high BLCA was statistically lower than that of TMEscore-low BLCA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of TMEscore and tumor mutation burden (TMB) is 0.6918 and 0.5374, respectively. Conclusion: We developed a method to classify BLCA patients to two TME subtypes, TMEscore-high and TMEscore-low, and we found TMEscore-high subtype of BLCA had a good prognosis and a good response to ICIs.
Background: The efficiency of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in bladder cancer (BLCA) treatment has been widely validated; however, the tumor response to ICIs was generally low. It is critical and urgent to find biomarkers that can predict tumor response to ICIs. The tumor microenvironment (TME), which may play important roles to either dampen or enhance immune responses, has been widely concerned. Methods: The cancer genome atlas BLCA (TCGA-BLCA) cohort (n = 400) was used in this study. Based on the proportions of 22 types of immune cells calculated by CIBERSORT, TME was classified by K-means Clustering and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were determined. Based on DEGs, patients were classified into three groups, and cluster signature genes were identified after reducing redundant genes. Then TMEscore was calculated based on cluster signature genes, and the samples were classified to two subtypes. We performed somatic mutation and copy number variation analysis to identify the genetic characteristics of the two subtypes. Correlation analysis was performed to explore the correlation between TMEscore and the tumor response to ICIs as well as the prognosis of BLCA. Results: According to the proportions of immune cells, two TME clusters were determined, and 1,144 DEGs and 138 cluster signature genes were identified. Based on cluster signature genes, samples were classified into TMEscore-high (n = 199) and TMEscore-low (n = 201) subtypes. Survival analysis showed patients with TMEscore-high phenotype had better prognosis. Among the 45 differentially expressed micro-RNAs (miRNAs) and 1,033 differentially expressed messenger RNAs (mRNAs) between the two subtypes, 16 miRNAs and 287 mRNAs had statistically significant impact on the prognosis of BLCA. Furthermore, there were 94 genes with significant differences between the two subtypes, and they were enriched in RTK-RAS, NOTCH, WNT, Hippo, and PI3K pathways. The Tumor Immune Dysfunction and Exclusion (TIDE) score of TMEscore-high BLCA was statistically lower than that of TMEscore-low BLCA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of TMEscore and tumor mutation burden (TMB) is 0.6918 and 0.5374, respectively. Conclusion: We developed a method to classify BLCA patients to two TME subtypes, TMEscore-high and TMEscore-low, and we found TMEscore-high subtype of BLCA had a good prognosis and a good response to ICIs.
Authors: Enrico Munari; Giuseppe Zamboni; Gianluigi Lunardi; Luigi Marchionni; Marcella Marconi; Marco Sommaggio; Matteo Brunelli; Guido Martignoni; George J Netto; Mohammad O Hoque; Francesca Moretta; Maria Cristina Mingari; Maria Cristina Pegoraro; Alessandro Inno; Simona Paiano; Alberto Terzi; Alberto Cavazza; Giulio Rossi; Francesca Romana Mariotti; Paola Vacca; Lorenzo Moretta; Giuseppe Bogina Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Matthew D Hellmann; Margaret K Callahan; Mark M Awad; Emiliano Calvo; Paolo A Ascierto; Akin Atmaca; Naiyer A Rizvi; Fred R Hirsch; Giovanni Selvaggi; Joseph D Szustakowski; Ariella Sasson; Ryan Golhar; Patrik Vitazka; Han Chang; William J Geese; Scott J Antonia Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Woonyoung Choi; Sima Porten; Seungchan Kim; Daniel Willis; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Beat Roth; Tiewei Cheng; Mai Tran; I-Ling Lee; Jonathan Melquist; Jolanta Bondaruk; Tadeusz Majewski; Shizhen Zhang; Shanna Pretzsch; Keith Baggerly; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Bogdan Czerniak; Colin P N Dinney; David J McConkey Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Christophe Massard; Michael S Gordon; Sunil Sharma; Saeed Rafii; Zev A Wainberg; Jason Luke; Tyler J Curiel; Gerardo Colon-Otero; Omid Hamid; Rachel E Sanborn; Peter H O'Donnell; Alexandra Drakaki; Winston Tan; John F Kurland; Marlon C Rebelatto; Xiaoping Jin; John A Blake-Haskins; Ashok Gupta; Neil H Segal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christos Sotiriou; Pratyaksha Wirapati; Sherene Loi; Adrian Harris; Steve Fox; Johanna Smeds; Hans Nordgren; Pierre Farmer; Viviane Praz; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Christine Desmedt; Denis Larsimont; Fatima Cardoso; Hans Peterse; Dimitry Nuyten; Marc Buyse; Marc J Van de Vijver; Jonas Bergh; Martine Piccart; Mauro Delorenzi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Thomas Powles; Joaquim Bellmunt; Fadi Braiteh; Yohann Loriot; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Howard A Burris; Joseph W Kim; Beiying Ding; Constanze Kaiser; Marcella Fassò; Carol O'Hear; Nicholas J Vogelzang Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Scot A Niglio; Rachel Jia; Jiayi Ji; Samuel Ruder; Vaibhav G Patel; Alberto Martini; John P Sfakianos; Kathryn E Marqueen; Nikhil Waingankar; Reza Mehrazin; Peter Wiklund; William K Oh; Madhu Mazumdar; Bart S Ferket; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 24.267
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: Ya Guo; Yin Bin Zhang; Yi Li; Wang Hui Su; Shan He; Shu Pei Pan; Kun Xu; Wei Hua Kou Journal: Int J Genomics Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 2.758
Authors: Ji Chen; Boyu Lv; Yating Zhan; Kai Zhu; Rongrong Zhang; Bo Chen; Yan Jin; Yeping Li; Jianjian Zheng; Changyong Lin Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 6.244