Image_1_Immune Cytolytic Activity as an Indicator of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Treatment for Prostate Cancer.tif
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment is becoming a new hope for cancer treatment. However, most prostate cancer (PCa) patients do not benefit from it. In order to achieve the accuracy of ICIs treatment in PCa and reduce unnecessary costs for patients, we have analyzed the data from TCGA database to find a indicator that can assist the choice of treatment. By analyzing the data of PCa patients with TMB analysis and immune infiltration analysis, we found the expression of immune cells in different immune infiltration groups. Commonly used markers of ICIs, expressed on CD8+ T cell, were highly expressed in the high immune group. Then we used the forimmune cytolytic activity (CYT) to determine its relationship with the target of ICIs treatment. Through the analysis of CYT score and the ligands of immune checkpoints, we found that there was a significant correlation between them. With the increase of CYT score, the expression of CD80/86, PD-L1/L2, TNFSF14, and LGALS9 also increased gradually. Similarly, CD8+ T cells were significantly increased in the CYT high group compared with the CYT low group in PRAD. The present research provides novel insights into the immune microenvironment of PRAD and potential immunotherapies. The proposed CYT score is a clinically promising indicator that can serve as a marker to assist anti-PD-L1 or other ICIs treatment. At the same time, it also provides a basis for the selection of other immune checkpoint drugs.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1111/imr.12519
- https://doi.org//10.3322/caac.21492
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s13073-017-0424-2
- https://doi.org//10.4110/in.2020.20.e9
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11912-018-0712-z
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1014618
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1501824
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.002
- https://doi.org//10.3322/canjclin.52.3.154
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.049
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nature12213
- https://doi.org//10.3390/cancers11050624
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrd.2016.233
- https://doi.org//10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0307
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41571-018-0003-5
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12916-019-1326-5
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3904
- https://doi.org//10.1101/gr.239244.118
- https://doi.org//10.1373/clinchem.2018.295097
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nmeth.3337
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cell.2014.12.033
- https://doi.org//10.3390/ijms18122627
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1406498
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1200690
- https://doi.org//10.2217/imt-2018-0002
- https://doi.org//10.1038/ncomms3612
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Bioprocessing, Bioproduction and Bioproducts
- Industrial Biotechnology Diagnostics (incl. Biosensors)
- Industrial Microbiology (incl. Biofeedstocks)
- Industrial Molecular Engineering of Nucleic Acids and Proteins
- Industrial Biotechnology not elsewhere classified
- Medical Biotechnology Diagnostics (incl. Biosensors)
- Biological Engineering
- Regenerative Medicine (incl. Stem Cells and Tissue Engineering)
- Medical Biotechnology not elsewhere classified
- Agricultural Marine Biotechnology
- Biomaterials
- Biomechanical Engineering
- Biotechnology
- Biomarkers
- Biomedical Engineering not elsewhere classified
- Genetic Engineering
- Synthetic Biology
- Bioremediation
- Medical Molecular Engineering of Nucleic Acids and Proteins