4.7 Article

RAS status and neoadjuvant chemotherapy impact CD8+cells and tumor HLA class I expression in liver metastatic colorectal cancer

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40425-018-0438-3

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Liver metastases; CD8; HLA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: T lymphocytes and HLA expression on tumor cell both influence prognostic of localized colorectal cancer, but their role following chemotherapy in patients with liver metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was not addressed. Methods: One hundred fourteen patients treated in curative intend of liver mCRC were included in this retrospective study. Patients were either untreated or treated with neoadjuvant therapy containing an anti-EGFR, bevacizumab or oxaliplatin. Immune densities were quantified in the tumor core and in invasive margin of metastases, using Qupath software or a pathologist's quantification. CD8, NKp46, Foxp3, CD163, HLA, PD-L1 were analyzed and were correlated with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results: In the whole cohort only a high CD8+ cells infiltrate, a high HLA-I expression and wild-type RAS/RAF status were associated with a better overall survival in both univariate and multivariate model. Moreover, CD8+ cells immune infiltrate at invasive margin combined to HLA expression in cancer cell could increase patient's outcome prediction. RAS status but not immune cell infiltrate was associated with HLA expression on tumor cells. In comparison to untreated patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy induced CD8+ cells recruitment and increased PD-L1 staining in immune infiltrates only for WT RAS patients. In this context, anti-EGFR and oxaliplatin based chemotherapy are the most powerful to induce CD8+ cells mobilization within the metastatic site. Conclusions: While CD8 infiltrate and HLA expression appear to be prognostic for mCRC, CD8 and PD-L1 infiltrate are enhanced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy in mCRC under RAS status dependence.

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

4.7
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