| Literature DB >> 35145511 |
Sheng-Ming Xu1,2,3,4, Chao-Ji Shi1,2,3,4, Rong-Hui Xia2,3,4,5, Li-Zhen Wang2,3,4,5, Zhen Tian2,3,4,5, Wei-Min Ye1,2,3,4, Liu Liu1,2,3,4, Shu-Li Liu1,2,3,4, Chun-Ye Zhang2,3,4,5, Yu-Hua Hu2,3,4,5, Rong Zhou1,2,3,4, Yong Han1,2,3,4, Yu Wang2,3,4,5, Zhi-Yuan Zhang1,2,3,4, Jiang Li2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression has been approved as an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response predictive biomarker; however, the clinicopathological and molecular features of HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma [HPV(+)OPSCC] based on PD-L1 expression are not well studied. We aimed to characterize clinicopathological, tumor immune microenvironmental, and molecular features of HPV(+)OPSCC with different PD-L1 expression scored by combined positive score (CPS). A total of 112 cases were collected from 2008-2021 and received PD-L1 and CD8 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining. 71 samples received DNA sequencing out of which 32 samples received RNA sequencing for immune-related gene alterations or expression analysis. The 32 samples were also subjected to analysis of CD20, CD4, CD8, CD68, Foxp3 and P16 by multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) staining, and the immune markers were evaluated in the tumor body (TB), tumor margin (TM) and normal stroma (NS) regions separately. Our results showed that of 112 HPV(+)OPSCC tumors, high(CPS≥20), intermediate(1≤CPS<20), and low(CPS<1) PD-L1 expression was seen in 29.5%, 43.8% and 26.8% cases respectively. Non-smoking patients and patients with tumors occurring at the tonsils or having rich lymphocytes infiltration had significantly higher PD-L1 expression. Patients with CPS≥20 had significantly higher tumor mutation burden (TMB, p=0.0058), and PD-L1 expression correlated significantly with CD8+ T cells infiltration, which were ample in tumor regions than in NS in mIF. CD20+, CD4+, CD68+, Foxp3+CD4+ cells were demonstrated to infiltrate higher in TM while CD20+ and CD68+ cells were also enriched in NS and TB regions respectively. However, none of them showed correlations with PD-L1 expression. ARID1A, STK11 alterations were enriched in the low PD-L1 group significantly, while anti-viral immune associated APOBEC mutation signature and immune-related genes expression such as XCL1 and IL11 were positively associated with PD-L1 expression (p<0.05). This is a comprehensive investigation revealing immune and molecular features of HPV(+)OPSCC based on PD-L1 expression. Our study suggested that 73.2% of HPV(+)OPSCC patients may benefit from immunotherapy, and high PD-L1 expression reflects immune-active status of HPV(+)OPSCC accompanied by higher immune effect factors such as TMB, CD8+ cytotoxic T cells and immune-related genomic alterations. Our study offers valuable information for understanding the immune features of HPV(+)OPSCC.Entities:
Keywords: HPV; OPSCC; PD-L1; genomic alterations; tumor immune microenvironment (TIM)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35145511 PMCID: PMC8821172 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.798424
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 3Representative images of mIF. (A) Definition of tumor body, tumor margin and normal stromal regions in HE section. (B) Definition of tumor body, tumor margin and normal stromal regions in mIF section. (C–F) Representative images of CPS≥20 cases. (C) PD-L1 staining (200X). (D) mIF in TB (200X). (E) mIF in TM (200X). (F) mIF in NS (200X). (G–J) Representative images of 1≤ CPS<20 cases. (G) PD-L1 staining (200X). (H) mIF in TB (200X). (I) mIF in TM (200X). (J) mIF in NS (200X). (K–N). Representative images of CPS<1 cases. (K) PD-L1 staining (200X). (L) mIF in TB (200X). (M) mIF in TM (200X). (N) mIF in NS (200X). CD20, yellow; CD68 green; CD4 red; Foxp3, orange; CD8, blue; P16, purple; DAPI for nuclei.
Figure 7(A) Immune cell marker expression analysis on RNA-sequencing data based on CPS levels. (B) Immune signature analysis based on CPS levels. “*” indicates immune cell markers expressed significantly different classified by methodology A. “#” indicates immune cell markers expressed significantly different classified by methodology B. “^” indicates immune cell markers expressed significantly different classified by methodology C.
Clinical characteristics of HPV (+)OPSCC classified by PD-L1 expression level.
| CPS | <1 (30, 26.8%) | ≥1,<20 (49, 43.8%) | ≥20 (33, 29.5%) | Methodology A | Methodology B | Methodology C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 56.38 | 56.7 | 57.61 | p = 0.82 | p = 0.413 | p=0.474 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 5 (20%) | 15 (60%) | 5 (20%) | p = 0.176 | p = 0.385 | p=0.239 |
| Male | 25 (28.7%) | 34 (39.1%) | 28 (32.2%) | |||
| Sites | ||||||
| Non-tonsil | 28 (32.6%) | 37 (43%) | 21 (24.4%) | p = 0.02 | p = 0.012 | p=0.033 |
| tonsil | 2 (7.7%) | 12 (46.2%) | 12 (46.2%) | |||
| Smoking Status | ||||||
| No | 14 (18.9%) | 36 (48.6%) | 24 (32.4%) | p = 0.032 | p = 0.009 | p=0.336 |
| Yes | 16 (42.1%) | 13 (34.2%) | 9 (23.7%) | |||
| Drinking Status | ||||||
| No | 22 (24.4%) | 41 (45.6%) | 27 (30%) | p = 0.516 | p = 0.258 | p=0.801 |
| Yes | 8 (36.4%) | 8 (36.4%) | 6 (27.3%) | |||
| TNM stage | ||||||
| I | 18 (22.5%) | 39 (48.8%) | 23 (28.7%) | p = 0.168 | p = 0.096 | p=0.758 |
| II-III | 12 (37.5%) | 10 (31.3%) | 10 (31.3%) | |||
| LN Metastasis | ||||||
| No | 5 (31.3%) | 6 (37.5%) | 5 (31.3%) | p = 0.850 | p = 0.663 | p=0.866 |
| Yes | 25 (26%) | 43 (44.8%) | 28 (43.2%) | |||
| Pathological Subtype | ||||||
| TIL-poor | 23 (41.1%) | 24 (42.9%) | 9 (16.1%) | p <0.001 | p = 0.001 | p=0.002 |
| TIL-rich | 7 (26.8%) | 25 (43.8%) | 24 (29.5%) |
Figure 1
(A) Overall survival of patients classified by methodology A. (B) Overall survival of patients classified by methodology B. (C) Overall survival of patients classified by methodology C. (D) The association of TMB as a continuous variable and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology A. (E) The association of TMB as a continuous variable and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology B. (F) The association of TMB as a continuous variable and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology C. (G) The association of CD8+ TILs density and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology A. (H) The association of CD8+ TILs density and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology B. (I) The association of CD8+ TILs density and PD-L1 CPS classified by methodology C. (J) PD-L1 staining (CPS<1, 200X). (K) PD-L1 staining (1
Figure 2Overview of main findings from mIF, RNA sequencing, and WES analysis classified by CPS levels. Listed in descending order are PD-L1 RNA expression value, TMB, clinical parameters, mIF immune markers in TB, mIF immune markers in TM, mIF immune markers in NS.
Figure 4Proportions of marker-positive cells according to TB, TM, and NS regions. (A) Comparison of the proportions of P16+ cells. (B) Comparison of the proportions of CD20+ cells. (C) Comparison of the proportions of CD4+ cells. (D) Comparison of the proportions Foxp3+CD4+cells. (E) Comparison of the proportions of CD8+ cells. (F) Comparison of the proportions of CD68+ cells.
Figure 5Proportions of marker-positive cells according to CPS levels. (A) Comparison of the proportion of CD8+cells in NS. (B) Comparison of the proportion of CD8+cells in TM. (C) Comparison of the proportion of CD3+cells in whole area of slides. (D) Comparison of the proportion of CD3+cells in NS. (E) Comparison of the proportion of CD3+cells in TM. (F) Comparison of the proportion of CD3+cells in TB. (G) Correlations of CD8+ cell and CD4+ cells in whole area of slides. (H) Correlations of CD8+ cell and CD4+ cells in TB.
Figure 6Genomic alterations analysis based on CPS levels. (A) The top common altered genes. (B) Altered genes among different CPS groups classified by methodology A. (C) Altered genes between different CPS groups classified by methodology B. (D) Altered genes between different CPS groups classified by methodology C. (E) Mutation signature analysis based on CPS levels.