| Literature DB >> 34586735 |
Yan-Xing Chen1, Zi-Xian Wang1, Shu-Qiang Yuan1, Teng-Jia Jiang1, You-Sheng Huang1, Rui-Hua Xu1,2, Feng Wang1, Qi Zhao1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34586735 PMCID: PMC8473642 DOI: 10.1002/ctm2.524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Transl Med ISSN: 2001-1326
FIGURE 1Prevalence and predicted functional impact of POL‐EDM and POL‐non‐EDM. (A) Proportion of POL‐EDM and POL‐non‐EDM tumors identified for the cohort and each cancer type. Numbers next to cancer types indicate the percentage of POL‐EDM tumors and POL‐non‐EDM tumors. “CNS cancer” means tumors in central nervous system. (B) TMB distribution in POL‐WT, POL‐non‐EDM, and POL‐EDM tumors in studies using WES (the dashed lines were used to denote the cutoff of TMB‐L (<10 Muts/Mb), TMB‐H (≥10 Muts/Mb), and TMB‐uH (≥100 Muts/Mb). Pie plot and the number on the left denote the proportion of TMB‐L, TMB‐H, and TMB‐uH tumors. (C) Mutational signatures in TMB‐H tumors carrying the POL‐PDS signature and POL‐MUTs without previous annotation as drivers. Each column described the features of one tumor sample, including its TMB, classification of POL‐MUT, mutation gene (“Both” means the sample carried POLE and POLD1 mutations simultaneously), cancer type, and fraction of each detected mutational signature
FIGURE 2Association of unselected POLE/POLD1 mutations and clinical outcomes in ICI treatment. (A) Comparison of objective response rate between POL‐MUT and POL‐WT patients after receiving ICI treatment. (B) Comparison of objective response rate between POL‐MUT and POL‐WT patients after receiving ICI treatment in TMB‐high and TMB‐low subgroup. (C) Comparison of disease control rate between POL‐MUT and POL‐WT patients after receiving ICI treatment. (D) Percentage of patients who derived DCB in the POL‐MUT and POL‐WT patients after receiving ICI treatment. (E) Comparison of progression‐free survival (PFS) between POL‐MUT patients and their WT counterparts in ICI treatment Cohort 1 by Kaplan–Meier estimates. (F) Comparison of overall survival (OS) between POL‐MUT patients and their WT counterparts in ICI treatment Cohort 1 by Kaplan–Meier estimates
FIGURE 3Association between different POLE/POLD1 mutation types and clinical outcomes. (A) Positional distribution of POLE mutations in Cohort 1 with the responders annotated. (B) Positional distribution of POLD1 mutations in Cohort 1 with the responders annotated. (C) Percentage of patients who derived objective response in the POL‐EDM, POL‐non‐EDM, and POL‐WT patients. (D) Comparison on overall survival (OS) among POL‐EDM, POL‐non‐EDM, and POL‐WT patients in ICI treatment Cohort 2 by Kaplan–Meier estimates
FIGURE 4Immune phenotypes of POL‐MUT tumors. (A) Neoantigen burden in tumors with MSI‐H status, MSS/POL‐EDM, MSS/POL‐non‐EDM, and MSS/POL‐WT. (B) Correlation between DDR pathway mutations and POL‐MUT. Odds ratio (OR) greater than 0 indicates a positive correlation. Abbreviations: TLS, translesion synthesis; NHEJ, non‐homologous end joining; NER, nucleotide excision repair; MMR, mismatch repair; HDR, homology‐dependent recombination; FA, Fanconi anemia; DS, damage sensor; DR, direct repair; BER, base excision repair. (C) Leukocyte infiltration fraction in tumors with MSI‐H status (n = 402), MSS/POL‐EDM (n = 88), MSS/POL‐non‐EDM (n = 247), and MSS/POL‐WT (n = 9369). (D) CD8+ T‐cell infiltration in tumors with MSI‐H status, MSS/POL‐EDM, MSS/POL‐non‐EDM, and MSS/POL‐WT. (E) Leukocyte infiltration fraction in TMB‐L tumors with MSI‐H status (n = 83), MSS/POL‐EDM (n = 24), MSS/POL‐non‐EDM (n = 162), and MSS/POL‐WT (n = 8654). (F) CD8+ T‐cell infiltration in TMB‐L tumors with MSI‐H status, MSS/POL‐EDM, MSS/POL‐non‐EDM, and MSS/POL‐WT. (G) ssGSEA score of HALLMARK immune‐associated pathways in tumors with MSI‐H status, MSS/POL‐EDM, MSS/POL‐non‐EDM, and MSS/POL‐WT. (H) ssGSEA score of HALLMARK immune‐associated pathways in TMB‐L tumors with MSI‐H status, MSS/POL‐EDM, MSS/POL‐non‐EDM, and MSS/POL‐WT. The figure legend denting the color of (A) and (C–H) is on the top; *p‐value < .05; **p‐value < .01; ***p‐value < .001