4.6 Article

Intrinsic Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in a Mismatch Repair-Deficient Colorectal Cancer

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 8, 页码 1230-1236

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0683

关键词

-

资金

  1. Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO Career Development Award
  2. Project P-Fund
  3. Cancer Research UK [C10674/A27140]
  4. Stand Up to Cancer Colorectal Cancer Dream Team Translational Research Grant [SU2C-AACR-DT22-17]
  5. American Association for Cancer Research, a scientific partner of SU2C
  6. NIH [RO1 CA205406, P50 CA127003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors, such as the programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab, are effective in a variety of tumors, yet not all patients respond. Tumor microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) has emerged as a biomarker of response to checkpoint blockade, leading to the tissue agnostic approval of pembrolizumab in MSI-H cancers. Here we describe a patient with MSI-H colorectal cancer that was treated with this immune checkpoint inhibitor and exhibited progression of disease. We examined this intrinsic resistance through genomic, transcriptional, and pathologic characterization of the patient's tumor and the associated immune microenviron-ment. The tumor had typical MSI-H molecular features, including a high neoantigen load. We also identified biallelic loss of the gene for beta(2)-microglobulin (B2M), whose product is critical for antigen presentation. Immune infiltration deconvolution analysis of bulk transcriptome data from this antiPD- 1-resistant tumor and hundreds of other colorectal cancer specimens revealed a high natural killer cell and M2 macrophage infiltration in the patient's cancer. This was confirmed by single-cell transcriptome analysis and multiplex immunofluorescence. Our study provides insight into resistance in MSI-H tumors and suggests immunotherapeutic strategies in additional genomic contexts of colorectal cancer.

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

4.6
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