4.7 Letter

Expression patterns of immune checkpoints in acute myeloid leukemia

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-020-00853-x

Keywords

PD-1; PD-L1; PD-L2; Prognosis; Immune checkpoint; AML

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81770152, 81570143, 91642111]
  2. Guangzhou Science and Technology Project [201807010004, 201803040017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for solid tumors had significantly improved overall survival. This type of therapy is still not available for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). One major issue is the lack of knowledge for the expression patterns of immune checkpoints (IC) in AML. In this study, we first explored the prognostic value of ICs for AML patients by analyzing RNA-seq and mutation data from 176 AML patients from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. We further validated the results of the database analysis by analyzing bone marrow (BM) samples from 62 patients with de novo AML. Both TCGA data and validation results indicated that high expression of PD-1, PD-L1, and PD-L2 was associated with poor overall survival (OS) in AML patients. In addition, increased co-expression of PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-L2/CTLA-4 correlated with poor OS in AML patients (3-year OS: TGCA data 30% vs 0% and 20% vs 0%, validation group 57% vs 31% and 57% vs 33%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Moreover, co-expression of PD-1/PD-L1, PD-1/PD-L1/PD-L2, and PD-1/LAG-3 was found to correlate with poor OS in AML patients with FLT3(mut), RUNX1(mut), and TET2(mut), respectively. In conclusion, high expression of ICs in the BM leukemia cells of AML patients correlated with poor outcome. The co-expression patterns of PD-1/CTLA-4, PD-L2/CTLA-4, PD-1/PD-L1, PD-1/PD-L1/PD-L2, and PD-1/LAG-3 might be potential immune biomarkers for designing novel AML therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available