| Literature DB >> 34732240 |
Zhihao Lu1, Huan Chen2, Xi Jiao1, Yujiao Wang1, Lijia Wu2, Huaibo Sun2, Shuang Li1, Jifang Gong1, Jian Li1, Jianling Zou1, Keyan Yang2, Ying Hu3, Beibei Mao2, Lei Zhang2, Xiaotian Zhang1, Zhi Peng1, Ming Lu1, Zhenghang Wang1, Henghui Zhang4, Lin Shen5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I) genotype has been linked with differential immune responses to infectious disease and cancer. However, the clinical relevance of germline HLA-mediated immunity in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer remains elusive.Entities:
Keywords: Gastrointestinal cancer; HLA genotype; HLA-I evolutionary divergence; Immune checkpoint blockade; Tumor mutational burden
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34732240 PMCID: PMC8567649 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-021-00997-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 11.117
Fig. 1Landscape of classic HLA class I evolutionary divergence in advanced GI cancer. a Schematic diagram of the PUCH study design. The HLA genotype and HED were obtained from 84 patients, and FFPE samples from 76 patients were subjected to WES analysis and RNA profiling. b Distributions of HED at HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and mean HED across different GI cancer types in the PUCH cohort. c Comparison of HED distributions among HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C heterozygous genotypes. ****p < 0.0001. Kruskal-Wallis test
Fig. 2Associations between HED and immunotherapeutic efficacy and the prognosis. a–c Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing OS between patients with high and low HED at each locus: HLA-A (a), HLA-B (b), and HLA-C (c). Patients were dichotomized into low-HED and high-HED subgroups with differential risks for OS by using the optimal cutoff values determined by the “surv_cutpoint” function of the “survminer” R package. d–f Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing PFS between patients with high and low HED at each locus: HLA-A (d), HLA-B (e), and HLA-C (f) (PFS information was available for 83 patients). g Forest plot showing the HRs and 95% CIs for the associations of potential prognostic factors (HLA-B HED, TMB, and MSI) with OS in multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (all information was available for 76 patients). h Forest plot showing the ORs and 95% CIs for the associations of germline determinants with DCB
Fig. 3Comparison of survival distributions by HED levels in different subpopulations in the PUCH cohort. a, b Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the OS (a) and PFS (b) curves between the high-HLA-B HED and low-HLA-B HED subgroups of patients with MSI-H GI cancer (n = 15). c, d Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the OS (c) and PFS (d) curves between the high-HLA-B HED and low-HLA-B HED subgroups of patients with MSS GI cancer (n = 61). For the MSS subgroup, only 60 patients had PFS information (the subgroup survival analysis was not performed in the MSK GI cohort since the MSI status was not available when downloaded)
Fig. 4Joint utility of HLA-B HED and TMB in predicting immunotherapeutic outcomes of GI cancer patients. a Proportions of patients with DCB calculated within each of the three indicated subgroups. b Waterfall plot of tumor response to ICB according to the joint biomarker (HLA-B HED and TMB). The Y-axis represents the percentage of maximum tumor change from baseline according to RECIST 1.1. c Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of PFS among patients within each of the three indicated subgroups in the PUCH cohort (n = 75, the PFS information was not available for one patient). d Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of OS among patients within each of the three indicated subgroups in the PUCH cohort (n = 76). e Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of OS among patients within each of the three indicated subgroups in the MSK GI cohort (n = 84, the MSK GI cohort included 84 patients in all). For both cohorts: Both high, HLA-B HED > 8.61 and TMB > 5.22 mut/Mb; single high, HLA-B HED > 8.61 or TMB > 5.22 mut/Mb; and both low, HLA-B HED ≤ 8.61 and TMB ≤ 5.22 mut/Mb
Fig. 5Correlation of HLA-B HED with genomic determinants and mutational patterns in patients with HLA-B heterozygosity. a, b Correlation of HLA-B HED with the CNA burden, TMB and neoantigen burden in the MSI-H (a) or MSS (b) subpopulations (two-sided Spearman’s correlation) in patients with HLA-B heterozygosity (n = 71). c Mutation frequency of driver genes between the high- and low-HLA-B HED subgroups in patients with HLA-B heterozygosity (n = 71) were compared using mafCompare function of the maftools R package. d Oncoplot of the potentially differentially mutated driver genes. e Association of HLA-B HED with TP53 mutations. f Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of OS and PFS between patients with or without TP53 mutations in patients with HLA-B heterozygosity (PFS information was not available for one patient). HLA-B HED high was designated as HLA-B HED > 8.61
Fig. 6Correlation between HLA-B HED and the expression of immune-related genes. a Heatmap of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the low HLA-B HED and high HLA-B HED subgroups in the PUCH cohort. DEGs were obtained from a 395-plex RNA immune oncology (RNA IO) profiling platform. b Volcano plot of DEGs. c Pathway enrichment analysis of DEGs by using the enrichPathway function from the ReactomePA R package