| Literature DB >> 35361730 |
Xiaofang Xing1, Jinyao Shi1,2, Yongning Jia2, Yunsheng Dou3, Zhongwu Li4, Bin Dong4, Ting Guo1, Xiaojing Cheng1, Xiaomei Li1, Hong Du1, Ying Hu5, Shuqin Jia6, Jian Zhang7, Ziyu Li8, Jiafu Ji9,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of immune checkpoint blockade and chemotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC). It is crucial to unravel chemotherapy-induced tumor microenvironment (TME) modulation and identify which immunotherapy would improve antitumor effect.Entities:
Keywords: gastrointestinal neoplasms; tumor biomarkers; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35361730 PMCID: PMC8971786 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003984
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 12.469
Figure 1(A) Comparison of immune cell infiltration of gastric cancer in patients treated with and without NAC. (B) Comparison of immune cells infiltration of gastric cancer in patients with different response (TRG 0–1 vs TRG 2–3) to NAC. X-axis represents the immune markers, and Y-axis represents the staining density of each marker. NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Univariate and multivariate survival analysis in GC NAC cohort
| Characteristics | Number | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
| Class | Total | Event (OS) | HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
| Age | 1.006 (0.991 to 1.020) | 0.450 | |||||
| Histology | Adenocarcinoma | 283 | 161 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) | 19 | 15 | 1.772 (1.043 to 3.009) | 0.034 | 1.993 (0.968 to 4.105) | 0.061 | |
| Differentiation | |||||||
| Poor | 135 | 91 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Well/moderate | 144 | 74 | 0.632 (0.465 to 0.859) | 0.003 | 0.636 (0.439 to 0.922) | 0.017 | |
| Tumor diameter | |||||||
| <5 cm | 151 | 72 | 1 | ||||
| ≥5 cm | 137 | 97 | 1.870 (1.378 to 2.538) | <0.001 | |||
| Vascular invasion | |||||||
| Negative | 174 | 80 | 1 | ||||
| Positive | 123 | 93 | 2.605 (1.926 to 3.523) | <0.001 | |||
| NAC response | |||||||
| Responders | 28 | 10 | 1 | ||||
| Non-responders | 276 | 167 | 2.116 (1.118 to 4.007) | 0.021 | |||
| pTNM | |||||||
| I | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| II | 95 | 30 | 7.711 (1.051 to 56.543) | 0.045 | 3.627 (0.488 to 26.968) | 0.208 | |
| III | 127 | 99 | 30.607 (4.263 to 219.727) | 0.001 | 12.691 (1.760 to 91.496) | 0.012 | |
| IV | 43 | 39 | 47.637 (6.530 to 347.492) | <0.001 | 17.340 (2.346 to 128.150) | 0.005 | |
| CD3 | 0.982 (0.965 to 0.999) | 0.043 | |||||
| CD8 | 0.972 (0.953 to 0.991) | 0.004 | 0.967 (0.946 to 0.989) | 0.004 | |||
| CD4 | 0.984 (0.957 to 1.012) | 0.255 | |||||
| FOXP3 | 1.004 (0.906 to 1.113) | 0.944 | |||||
| Granzyme B | 0.943 (0.860 to 1.035) | 0.220 | |||||
| CD20 | 1.004 (0.982 to 1.027) | 0.725 | |||||
| CD68 | 0.997 (0.963 to 1.032) | 0.873 | |||||
| CD57 | 1.009 (0.987 to 1.032) | 0.439 | |||||
GC, gastric cancer; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 2(A) Multiplex immunofluorescence images of immune cell infiltration in paired pre-NAC and post-NAC specimens of gastric cancer. (B) Comparison of total immune markers in matched pre-NAC and post-NAC group. X-axis represents the single/combined immune markers. Y-axis indicates the immune infiltrating density that is transformed using Log2 (density +1). NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 3(A) Comparison of immune markers in total, tumor and stromal before NAC between the respond (TRG0-1) and non-respond (TRG2-3) group. (B) Comparison of immune markers in total, tumor and stromal after NAC between the respond (TRG0-1) and non-respond (TRG2-3) group. X-axis represents the single/combined immune markers. Y-axis indicates the immune infiltrating density that is transformed using Log2(densitiy +1). (C) Comparison of the alterations in CD8+ immune cells between the respond (TRG0-1) and non-respond (TRG2-3) group. (D) Comparison of the alterations in FOXP3+ immune cells between the respond (TRG0-1) and non-respond (TRG2-3) group. X-axis represents the respond/no-respond group for NAC, and Y-axis indicates the change of immune infiltrating density after NAC, which is represented by density in post-NAC group minus density in pre-NAC group. NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 4T cell receptor repertoire analysis of preneoadjuvant and postneoadjuvant chemotherapy-treated gastric cancer. Comparison of the number of total TCR (A) and unique TCR (B) and the proportion of unique TCR (C) in patients treated with and without NAC. Estimation relative abundance for the groups of top TCR clonotypes in TCR repertoire of all patients (D) and of paired pre-NAC and post-NAC group (E). The D50 index (F) and normalized Shannon entropy (G) of the TCR repertoire before and after NAC for each patient. (H) Comparison of the number of tumor mutation burdens (TMBs) pre-NAC and post-NAC for each patient. NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Figure 5Analysis of different chemotherapy regimens. Comparison of the normalized Shannon entropy (A) and tumor mutation burdens (B) of the TCR repertoire pre-NAC and post-NAC for each patient in different regimens. (C) Comparison of the normalized Shannon entropy and tumor mutation burdens of the TCR repertoire in matched pre-NAC and post-NAC group for patients accepted XELOX regimen by effect.