Sungyong You1,2, Minhyung Kim1, Xen Ping Hoi2,3, Yu Cheng Lee4, Li Wang5, David Spetzler6, Jim Abraham6, Dan Magee6, Prerna Jain7, Matthew D Galsky5, Keith Syson Chan2,3, Dan Theodorescu1,2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, NY, USA. 6. Caris Life Sciences, Irving, TX, USA. 7. Tempus, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint therapies (ICTs) provided durable responses only in a subset of cancer patients. Thus, biomarkers are needed to predict nonresponders and offer them alternative treatments. We recently implicated discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (DDR2) as a contributor to anti-PD-1 resistance in animal models; therefore, we sought to investigate whether this gene family may provide ICT response prediction. METHODS: We assessed mRNA expression of DDR2 and its family member DDR1. Transcriptome analysis of bladder cancer (BCa) models in which DDR1 and 2 were perturbed was used to derive DDR1- and DDR2-driven signature scores. DDR mRNA expression and gene signature scores were evaluated using BCa-The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 259) and IMvigor210 (n = 298) datasets, and their relationship to BCa subtypes, pathway enrichment, and immune deconvolution analyses was performed. The potential of DDR-driven signatures to predict ICT response was evaluated and independently validated through a statistical framework in bladder and lung cancer cohorts. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: DDR1 and DDR2 showed mutually exclusive gene expression patterns in human tumors. DDR2high BCa exhibited activation of immune pathways and a high immune score, indicative of a T-cell-inflamed phenotype, whereas DDR1high BCa exhibited a non-T-cell-inflamed phenotype. In IMvigor210 cohort, tumors with high DDR1 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16 to 2.06; P = .003) or DDR2 (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.92; P = .04) scores had poor overall survival. Of note, DDR2high tumors from IMvigor210 and CheckMate 275 (n = 73) cohorts exhibited poorer overall survival (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.06; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR = 1.77 95%, CI = 1.05 to 3.00; P = .047), respectively. This result was validated in independent cancer datasets. CONCLUSIONS: These findings implicate DDR1 and DDR2 driven signature scores in predicting ICT response.
BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint therapies (ICTs) provided durable responses only in a subset of cancer patients. Thus, biomarkers are needed to predict nonresponders and offer them alternative treatments. We recently implicated discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (DDR2) as a contributor to anti-PD-1 resistance in animal models; therefore, we sought to investigate whether this gene family may provide ICT response prediction. METHODS: We assessed mRNA expression of DDR2 and its family member DDR1. Transcriptome analysis of bladder cancer (BCa) models in which DDR1 and 2 were perturbed was used to derive DDR1- and DDR2-driven signature scores. DDR mRNA expression and gene signature scores were evaluated using BCa-The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 259) and IMvigor210 (n = 298) datasets, and their relationship to BCa subtypes, pathway enrichment, and immune deconvolution analyses was performed. The potential of DDR-driven signatures to predict ICT response was evaluated and independently validated through a statistical framework in bladder and lung cancer cohorts. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: DDR1 and DDR2 showed mutually exclusive gene expression patterns in human tumors. DDR2high BCa exhibited activation of immune pathways and a high immune score, indicative of a T-cell-inflamed phenotype, whereas DDR1high BCa exhibited a non-T-cell-inflamed phenotype. In IMvigor210 cohort, tumors with high DDR1 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16 to 2.06; P = .003) or DDR2 (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.92; P = .04) scores had poor overall survival. Of note, DDR2high tumors from IMvigor210 and CheckMate 275 (n = 73) cohorts exhibited poorer overall survival (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.20 to 2.06; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR = 1.77 95%, CI = 1.05 to 3.00; P = .047), respectively. This result was validated in independent cancer datasets. CONCLUSIONS: These findings implicate DDR1 and DDR2 driven signature scores in predicting ICT response.
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Sandra P D'Angelo; David Minor; F Stephen Hodi; Ralf Gutzmer; Bart Neyns; Christoph Hoeller; Nikhil I Khushalani; Wilson H Miller; Christopher D Lao; Gerald P Linette; Luc Thomas; Paul Lorigan; Kenneth F Grossmann; Jessica C Hassel; Michele Maio; Mario Sznol; Paolo A Ascierto; Peter Mohr; Bartosz Chmielowski; Alan Bryce; Inge M Svane; Jean-Jacques Grob; Angela M Krackhardt; Christine Horak; Alexandre Lambert; Arvin S Yang; James Larkin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Nicolas J Llosa; Michael Cruise; Ada Tam; Elizabeth C Wicks; Elizabeth M Hechenbleikner; Janis M Taube; Richard L Blosser; Hongni Fan; Hao Wang; Brandon S Luber; Ming Zhang; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Cynthia L Sears; Robert A Anders; Drew M Pardoll; Franck Housseau Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: A Gordon Robertson; Jaegil Kim; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Joaquim Bellmunt; Guangwu Guo; Andrew D Cherniack; Toshinori Hinoue; Peter W Laird; Katherine A Hoadley; Rehan Akbani; Mauro A A Castro; Ewan A Gibb; Rupa S Kanchi; Dmitry A Gordenin; Sachet A Shukla; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Donna E Hansel; Bogdan A Czerniak; Victor E Reuter; Xiaoping Su; Benilton de Sa Carvalho; Vinicius S Chagas; Karen L Mungall; Sara Sadeghi; Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu; Yiling Lu; Leszek J Klimczak; Jiexin Zhang; Caleb Choo; Akinyemi I Ojesina; Susan Bullman; Kristen M Leraas; Tara M Lichtenberg; Catherine J Wu; Nicholaus Schultz; Gad Getz; Matthew Meyerson; Gordon B Mills; David J McConkey; John N Weinstein; David J Kwiatkowski; Seth P Lerner Journal: Cell Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Marco A J Iafolla; Heather Selby; Kathrin Warner; Pamela S Ohashi; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Lillian L Siu Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Steven C Smith; Alexander S Baras; Charles R Owens; Garrett Dancik; Dan Theodorescu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Sanjeev Mariathasan; Shannon J Turley; Dorothee Nickles; Alessandra Castiglioni; Kobe Yuen; Yulei Wang; Edward E Kadel; Hartmut Koeppen; Jillian L Astarita; Rafael Cubas; Suchit Jhunjhunwala; Romain Banchereau; Yagai Yang; Yinghui Guan; Cecile Chalouni; James Ziai; Yasin Şenbabaoğlu; Stephen Santoro; Daniel Sheinson; Jeffrey Hung; Jennifer M Giltnane; Andrew A Pierce; Kathryn Mesh; Steve Lianoglou; Johannes Riegler; Richard A D Carano; Pontus Eriksson; Mattias Höglund; Loan Somarriba; Daniel L Halligan; Michiel S van der Heijden; Yohann Loriot; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Lawrence Fong; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; Marjorie Green; Christina Derleth; Gregg D Fine; Priti S Hegde; Richard Bourgon; Thomas Powles Journal: Nature Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kenneth H Gouin; Nathan Ing; Jasmine T Plummer; Charles J Rosser; Bassem Ben Cheikh; Catherine Oh; Stephanie S Chen; Keith Syson Chan; Hideki Furuya; Warren G Tourtellotte; Simon R V Knott; Dan Theodorescu Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Rohan R Katipally; Sean P Pitroda; Aditya Juloori; Steven J Chmura; Ralph R Weichselbaum Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 65.011