4.8 Article

Robust prediction of response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy in metastatic melanoma

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1545-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0157-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Israeli Science Foundation (ISF) [41/11]
  2. intramural program at the CCR, NCI
  3. NCI-UMD partnership for integrative cancer research
  4. Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  5. NIH [5P01CA114046, 5P50CA174523, 1U54CA224070]
  6. Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Grant [WX1XWH-16-1-0119, CA150619]
  7. [R33-CA225291-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy provides remarkable clinical gains and has been very successful in treatment of melanoma. However, only a subset of patients with advanced tumors currently benefit from ICB therapies, which at times incur considerable side effects and costs. Constructing predictors of patient response has remained a serious challenge because of the complexity of the immune response and the shortage of large cohorts of ICB-treated patients that include both 'omics' and response data. Here we build immuno-predictive score (IMPRES), a predictor of ICB response in melanoma which encompasses 15 pairwise transcriptomics relations between immune checkpoint genes. It is based on two key conjectures: (i) immune mechanisms underlying spontaneous regression in neuroblastoma can predict melanoma response to ICB, and (ii) key immune interactions can be captured via specific pairwise relations of the expression of immune checkpoint genes. IMPRES is validated on nine published datasets(1-6) and on a newly generated dataset with 31 patients treated with anti-PD-1 and 10 with anti-CTLA-4, spanning 297 samples in total. It achieves an overall accuracy of AUC = 0.83, outperforming existing predictors and capturing almost all true responders while misclassifying less than half of the nonresponders. Future studies are warranted to determine the value of the approach presented here in other cancer types.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据