TIGIT+ NK cells in combination with specific gut microbiota features predict response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy in melanoma patients
-
Published:2023-11-28
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1471-2407
-
Container-title:BMC Cancer
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Cancer
Author:
Tsakmaklis Anastasia,Farowski Fedja,Zenner Rafael,Lesker Till Robin,Strowig Till,Schlößer Hans,Lehmann Jonas,von Bergwelt-Baildon Michael,Mauch Cornelia,Schlaak Max,Knuever Jana,Schweinsberg Viola,Heinzerling Lucie M.,Vehreschild Maria J. G. T.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Composition of the intestinal microbiota has been correlated to therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in various cancer entities including melanoma. Prediction of the outcome of such therapy, however, is still unavailable. This prospective, non-interventional study was conducted in order to achieve an integrated assessment of the connection between a specific intestinal microbiota profile and antitumor immune response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (anti-PD-1 and/or anti-CTLA-4) in melanoma patients.
Methods
We assessed blood and stool samples of 29 cutaneous melanoma patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. For functional and phenotypical immune analysis, 12-color flow cytometry and FluoroSpot assays were conducted. Gut microbiome was analyzed with shotgun metagenomics sequencing. To combine clinical, microbiome and immune variables, we applied the Random Forest algorithm.
Results
A total of 29 patients was analyzed in this study, among whom 51.7% (n = 15) reached a durable clinical benefit. The Immune receptor TIGIT is significantly upregulated in T cells (p = 0.0139) and CD56high NK cells (p = 0.0037) of responders. Several bacterial taxa were associated with response (e.g. Ruminococcus torques) or failure (e.g. Barnesiella intestinihominis) to immune therapy. A combination of two microbiome features (Barnesiella intestinihominis and the Enterobacteriaceae family) and one immune feature (TIGIT+ CD56high NK cells) was able to predict response to ICI already at baseline (AUC = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.841–0.853).
Conclusions
Our results reconfirm a link between intestinal microbiota and response to ICI therapy in melanoma patients and furthermore point to TIGIT as a promising target for future immunotherapies.
Funder
Deutsche Krebshilfe Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cancer Research,Genetics,Oncology
Reference41 articles.
1. Engelhardt JJ, Sullivan TJ, Allison JP. CTLA-4 overexpression inhibits T cell responses through a CD28-B7-dependent mechanism. J Immunol. 2006;177(2):1052–61. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.177.2.1052. 2. Hargadon KM, Johnson CE, Williams CJ. Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018;62:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2018.06.001. 3. Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, Gottfried M, Peled N, Tafreshi A, Cuffe S, O’Brien M, Rao S, Hotta K, Leiby MA, Lubiniecki GM, Shentu Y, Rangwala R, Brahmer JR. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823–33. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606774. 4. Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, McNeil C, Kalinka-Warzocha E, Savage KJ, Hernberg MM, Lebbé C, Charles J, Mihalcioiu C, Chiarion-Sileni V, Mauch C, Cognetti F, Arance A, Schmidt H, Schadendorf D, Gogas H, Lundgren-Eriksson L, Horak C, Sharkey B, Waxman IM, Atkinson V, Ascierto PA. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):320–30. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1412082. 5. Weber JS, D’Angelo SP, Minor D, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(4):375–84.
|
|