| Literature DB >> 35834099 |
Jiale Zhou1, Junyun Wang2, Wen Kong1, Jin Zhang1, Xiaorong Wu1, Jiwei Huang1, Junhua Zheng1, Yonghui Chen3, Wei Zhai4,5, Wei Xue6,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are being used for the first-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC). Here, we set out to explore associations between genomic statuses, gene expression clusters and clinical outcomes of mccRCCs upon the application of VEGFR-TKIs.Entities:
Keywords: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; DNA damage repair; Predictive biomarker; VEGF-TKI; VHL
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35834099 PMCID: PMC9424144 DOI: 10.1007/s13402-022-00691-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) ISSN: 2211-3428 Impact factor: 7.051
Clinical characteristics of 56 enrolled ccRCC patients with first-line TKIs therapy
| Clinical Characteristics | Overall | DDR alteration | VHL alteration | VHL + DDR co-mutation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 56 | 17 | 35 | 13 |
| Median yrs age of at initiation of therapy(years), (range) | 56(24–79) | 56(41–79) | 59(36–73) | 56(41–73) |
| Gender(male) | 43(76.79%) | 12(70.59%) | 26(74.29%) | 8(61.54%) |
| Sarcomatoid | 4(7.14%) | 1(5.88%) | 3(8.57%) | 1(7.69%) |
| IMDC risk score | ||||
| Favorable | 1(1.79%) | 1(5.88%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| Intermediate | 42(75.00%) | 16(94.12%) | 28(80%) | 13(100%) |
| Poor | 13(23.21%) | 0(0%) | 7(20%) | 0(0%) |
| MSKCC risk score | ||||
| Favorable | 1(1.79%) | 1(5.88%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) |
| Intermediate | 46(82.14%) | 16(94.12%) | 31(88.57%) | 13(100%) |
| Poor | 9(16.07%) | 0(0%) | 4(11.43%) | 0(0%) |
| VEGF | ||||
| Sunitinib | 18(32.14%) | 7(41.18%) | 10(28.57%) | 5(38.46%) |
| Pazopanib | 6(10.71%) | 0(0%) | 3(8.57%) | 0(0%) |
| Axitinib | 11(19.64%) | 4(23.53%) | 10(28.57%) | 7(53.85%) |
| Sorafenib | 21(37.50%) | 6(35.29%) | 12(34.29%) | 1(7.69%) |
Fig. 1Flow chart of genomic and transcriptomic analyses and overview of the Renji-mccRCC cohort with first-line VEGF-TKI therapy and its somatic mutation landscape. (A) All 56 patients underwent targeted genome sequencing, and 40 were analyzed by whole transcriptome sequencing. The overall study design and main results are shown in the flow chart. (B) The top 40 genes of the somatic mutation oncoplot are shown. VHL mutations were found in 35 (66%) of the patients, followed by PBRM1 mutations in 20 (38%) patients and SETD2 mutations in 10 (19%) patients
Fig. 2Somatic VHL and DDR alterations are associated with treatment outcome and PFS in 56 patients with first-line VEGF-TKI therapy. (A) DDR genomic alteration oncoplot of 56 patients. A total of 30 DDR gene alterations were detected in 17 patients. (B) Distribution of deleterious somatic and germline alterations and CNVs (amplifications and deletions) in patients with mccRcc. (C) Comparison of the ORR percentages of the DDR pathway mutant group and the nonmutant group. DDR mutant patients tended to show a better ORR rate than the nonmutant patients. (D-F) Kaplan–Meier plots were used to estimate PFS according to DDR alteration, VHL mutation and co-mutation status. Patients harboring VHL mutations, DDR alterations or VHL and DDR co-mutations showed a longer PFS than the corresponding nonmutation patients in first-line TKI treatment (log-rank p = 0.04, 0.017, 0.011)
Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models to predict PFS
| Prognostic Factors Univariable | Univariable Multivariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Gender.Male | 0.966(0.52–1.793) | 0.912 | ||
| Age.Old | 0.966(0.415–2.248) | 0.935 | ||
| IMDC.Poor | 2.54(1.247–5.172) | 0.010 | 3.97(1.08–14.62) | 0.038 |
| MSKCC.Poor | 2.228(1.012–4.906) | 0.047 | 0.57(0.14–2.24) | 0.418 |
| Sarcomatoid | 3.089(1.06–8.998) | 0.039 | 5.03(1.6–15.76) | 0.006 |
| VHL.mut | 0.526(0.284–0.975) | 0.041 | 0.47(0.25–0.91) | 0.024 |
| DDR.mut | 0.405(0.186–0.882) | 0.023 | 0.57(0.25–1.32) | 0.189 |
Fig. 3Transcriptional clustering identifies three molecular subtypes of mccRCC and subtypes associated with differential clinical outcomes after TKI therapy. (A) 40 patients with mccRCC were divided into three different clusters, C-1 (TIL-abundant), C-2 (immune-inhibited) and C-3 (TIL-intermediate) by K-means clustering. (B) Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showing that patients in the C_1 cluster exhibited longer PFS rates than those in the C_2 and C_3 clusters. The log rank p value between C_1 and C_2 was 0.03, whereas the p value between C_1 and C_3 was 0.13. (C) Stacked bar diagram showing the ORR percentages of the three subgroups. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare differences. C_1 versus C_2, p = 0.0187; C_1 versus C_3, p = 0.0301, *, p < 0.05. (D) Different subtypes were associated with distinct proportions of somatic VHL mutations, DDR alterations and co-mutations. The C_1 subgroup harbored a higher percentage of genomic VHL and DDR mutations than the C_2 and C_3 subgroups
Fig. 4Different subtypes exhibit unique characteristics of the tumor immune microenvironment. The C_1 subgroup was abundant in activated TILs, including activated CD8 + T cells and effector memory CD8 + T cells, whereas the C_2 group was abundant in suppressed TILs, such as eosinophils, mast cells and DCs. The C_3 subtype was abundant in Treg cells