| Literature DB >> 33889438 |
Hai-Xia He1,2, Yan Gao1,2, Jian-Chang Fu1,3, Qiang-Hua Zhou4,5, Xiao-Xiao Wang1,2, Bing Bai1,2, Peng-Fei Li1,2, Cheng Huang1,2, Qi-Xiang Rong1,2, Li-Qin Ping1,2, Yan-Xia He1,2, Jia-Ying Mao1,2, Xu Chen4,5, Hui-Qiang Huang1,2.
Abstract
Although PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy confers salutary effects across cancer types, their efficacy in Extranodal Natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTCL) patients is limited and unpredictable. Here, we comprehensively evaluated the expression profile of a panel of immune-regulatory makers to identify novel prognostic biomarkers and/or therapeutic targets for this malignancy. Using immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence, we found that the expression of VISTA (88.1%) was predominantly in CD68+ macrophages and much higher than PD-L1 expression (68.7%) in ENKTCL. B7-H4 and HHLA2 proteins were not detected in ENKTCL. B7-H3 was expressed in minority of ENKTCL patients (13.7%) and mainly colocalized with CD31. A close correlation was detected between VISTA and PD-L1, but they were not co-expressed in the same cells. High expressions of VISTA or PD-L1 were significantly associated with detrimental clinicopathological characteristics, dismal prognosis, and high density of CD8+ TILs, and high VISTA expression was also significantly associated with high density of Foxp3+ TILs. VISTA combined with PD-L1 was an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS. Moreover, the patients with high VISTA showed a poor response to PD-1 blockades in ENKTCL. In conclusion, these findings provide a rationale for VISTA as an ideal immunotherapeutic target next to PD-L1 for ENKTCL.Entities:
Keywords: Natural killer/t-cell lymphoma; PD-L1; antitumor immunity; immune checkpoint; ✚-vista
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33889438 PMCID: PMC8032243 DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1907059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncoimmunology ISSN: 2162-4011 Impact factor: 8.110
Figure 1.Expression of PD-L1 and VISTA in tumor tissues from ENKTCL patients. A-E. Representative double immunofluorescence images of CD56 (green) and PD-L1 (red) (a), CD68 (green) and PD-L1 (red) (b), CD56 (green) and VISTA (red) (c), CD68 (green) and VISTA (red) (d), and PD-L1 (green) and VISTA (red) (e). The nucleus is labeled with DAPI (blue). Arrows indicate the colocation of indicated proteins. F. The representative IHC images of PD-L1 and VISTA from serial sections. G. The correlation between PD-L1 expression and VISTA expression depicted with scatter plot. Scale bar is 50 μm
The correlation between PD-L1 and VISTA expression and clinicopathological characteristics
| PD-L1 expression | VISTA expression | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | PatientsNO. | Low | High | Low | High | ||
| Age(y) | 0.412 | 0.666 | |||||
| <60 | 96 | 55 | 41 | 53 | 43 | ||
| ≥60 | 13 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 5 | ||
| Gender | 0.307 | 0.158 | |||||
| Male | 74 | 41 | 33 | 38 | 36 | ||
| Female | 35 | 23 | 12 | 23 | 12 | ||
| Location | 0.325 | ||||||
| Nasal | 85 | 52 | 33 | 52 | 33 | ||
| Others | 24 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 15 | ||
| B symptoms | 0.098 | 0.317 | |||||
| Yes | 49 | 33 | 16 | 30 | 19 | ||
| No | 60 | 31 | 29 | 31 | 29 | ||
| ECOG score | 0.500 | 1.000 | |||||
| 0-1 | 105 | 61 | 44 | 59 | 46 | ||
| ≥2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Elevated LDH | 0.096 | 0.093 | |||||
| Yes | 75 | 48 | 27 | 46 | 29 | ||
| No | 34 | 16 | 18 | 15 | 19 | ||
| Distal LN involvement | |||||||
| Yes | 90 | 57 | 33 | 56 | 34 | ||
| No | 19 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 14 | ||
| Ann Arbor stage | |||||||
| I-II | 74 | 50 | 24 | 49 | 25 | ||
| III-IV | 35 | 14 | 21 | 12 | 23 | ||
| NRI score | |||||||
| 0-1 | 45 | 33 | 12 | 34 | 11 | ||
| ≥2 | 64 | 31 | 33 | 27 | 37 | ||
| PINK | |||||||
| 0-1 | 83 | 55 | 28 | 53 | 30 | ||
| ≥2 | 26 | 9 | 17 | 8 | 18 | ||
| VISTA | - | ||||||
| Low | 70 | 48 | 13 | - | - | ||
| High | 39 | 16 | 32 | - | - | ||
Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; LN, lymph node, NRI, nomogram-revised risk index; PINK, prognostic index of natural killer lymphoma. p-value <0.05 marked in bold font shows statistically significant.
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors correlated with PFS and OS in patients with ENKTCL
| PSF | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
| Age (y) (≥60/<60) | 1.10 (0.54–2.20) | 0.800 | 1.57 (0.77–3.19) | 0.217 |
| Gender (male/female) | 0.72 (0.43–1.19) | 0.200 | 0.77 (0.44–1.36) | 0.369 |
| Location (nasal/others) | 1.93 (1.14–3.19) | 1.31 (0.72–2.40) | 0.378 | |
| B symptoms (yes/no) | 1.30 (0.82–2.06) | 0.272 | 1.26 (0.75–2.12) | 0.388 |
| ECOG score (≥2/0-1) | 1.23 (0.39–3.92) | 0.725 | 1.76 (0.55–5.62) | 0.343 |
| Elevated LDH (yes/no) | 1.43 (0.87–2.35) | 0.158 | 1.74 (1.01–3.00) | |
| Distal LN involvement (yes/no) | 2.17 (1.27–3.76) | 1.87 (1.01–3.48) | ||
| Ann Arbor stage III–IV/I–II | 2.34 (1.46–3.77) | 2.59 (1.53–4.38) | ||
| NRI score (≥2/0-1) | 1.72 (1.06–2.78) | 2.24 (1.28–3.93) | ||
| PINK (≥2/0-1) | 1.82 (1.09–3.02) | 1.59 (0.89–2.83) | 0.117 | |
| Chemotherapy (non-ANT/ANT based) | 0.38 (0.22–0.65) | 0.39 (0.22–0.69) | ||
| PD-L1 expression (high/low) | 1.93 (1.22–3.07) | 2.44 (1.45–4.11) | ||
| VISTA expression (high/Low) | 2.05 (1.29–3.25) | 2.27 (1.34–3.83) | ||
Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; LN, lymph node; NRI, nomogram-revised risk index; PINK, prognostic index of natural killer lymphoma; ANT, anthracycline; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. p-value <0.05 marked in bold font shows statistically significant.
Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier survival curves for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with ENKTCL according to PD-L1 and VISTA expression. A-B. PFS for ENKTCL patients based on PD-L1 (a) and VISTA (b) expression. C-D. OS for ENKTCL patients based on PD-L1 (c) and VISTA (d) expression. E-F. PFS (e) and OS (f) for ENKTCL patients based on combination of PD-L1 and VISTA expression. Type I, PD-L1low/VISTAlow; Type II, PD-L1low/VISTAhigh or PD-L1high/VISTAlow; Type III, PD-L1high/VISTAhigh
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors correlated with PFS and OS in patients with ENKTCL
| PSF | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
| Location (nasal/others) | 1.65 (0.92–2.98) | 0.094 | - | - |
| PINK (2–3/0-1) | 0.19 (0.05–0.73) | - | - | |
| Elevated LDH (yes/no) | - | - | 1.14 (0.62–2.13) | 0.671 |
| Distal LN involvement | 2.34 (0.77–7.08) | 0.134 | 0.71 (0.32–1.57) | 0.392 |
| Ann Arbor stage | 3.70 (1.57–8.73) | 2.01 (0.91–4.44) | 0.083 | |
| NRI score (≥2/0-1) | 1.28 (0.68–2.42) | 0.443 | 1.78 (0.85–3.74) | 0.127 |
| Chemotherapy | 0.33 (0.18–0.59) | 0.27 (0.14–0.52) | ||
| PD-L1 expression | 1.46 (0.82–2.62) | 0.200 | 1.75 (0.93–3.28) | 0.081 |
| VISTA expression | 1.48 (0.82–2.68) | 0.198 | 1.32 (0.68–2.55) | 0.412 |
Abbreviation: LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; LN, lymph node; NRI, nomogram-revised risk index; PINK, prognostic index of natural killer lymphoma; ANT, anthracycline; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. p-value <0.05 marked in bold font shows statistically significant.
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors correlated with PFS and OS in patients with ENKTCL
| PFS | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | ||
| Location (nasal/others) | 1.65 (0.92–2.97) | 0.094 | - | - |
| PINK (2–3/0-1) | 0.19 (0.05–0.73) | - | - | |
| Elevated LDH (yes/no) | - | - | 1.14 (0.62–2.13) | 0.670 |
| Distal LN involvement | 2.34 (0.77–7.08) | 0.134 | 0.69 (0.31–1.53) | 0.361 |
| Ann Arbor stage | 3.70 (1.57–8.73) | 2.02 (0.91–4.47) | 0.082 | |
| NRI score (≥2/0-1) | 1.28 (0.68–2.42) | 0.443 | 1.77 (0.84–3.70) | 0.131 |
| Chemotherapy | 0.33 (0.18–0.59) | 0.28 (0.15–0.53) | ||
| PD-L1/VISTA expression | 1.47 (1.10–1.98) | 1.53 (1.10–2.12) | ||
Abbreviation: LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; LN, lymph node; NRI, nomogram-revised risk index; PINK, prognostic index of natural killer lymphoma, ANT, anthracycline, PFS, progression-free survival, OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; Type I, PD-L1low/VISTAlow; Type II, PD-L1low/VISTA,high or PD-L1high/VISTA low; Type III, PD-L1high/VISTAhigh. p-value <0.05 marked in bold font shows statistically significant.
Figure 3.The correlation between the expression of VISTA and PD-L1, and the density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). A. The representative images of PD-L1, VISTA, CD8 and Foxp3 from serial sections from two samples, sample 1(up) and sample 2 (down). B-D. The correlations between CD8+ TILs and PD-L1 expression (b), VISTA expression (c) or novel immune classification (d) depicted with scatter plot. E-G. The correlations between Foxp3+ TILs and PD-L1 expression (e), VISTA expression (f) or novel immune classification (g) depicted with scatter plot. All data display mean ± SEM. Scale bar is 50 μm. *p < .05, ***p < .001. ns: no significance. Type I, PD-L1low/VISTAlow; Type II, PD-L1low/VISTAhigh or PD-L1high/VISTAlow; Type III, PD-L1high/VISTAhigh
Figure 4.The PD-L1 and VISTA expression were associated with the response to blockade of PD-1. (a). The representative images of the PD-L1 and VISTA expression in indicated groups. (b). Swimmer’s plot showing the response to PD-1 blockade in extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma patients, who were classified into four groups as indicated. CR, complete response; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease