4.7 Article

Transcriptional Mechanisms of Resistance to Anti-PD-1 Therapy

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 3168-3180

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0270

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Melanoma Research Alliance
  2. Bloombergsimilar toKimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy
  3. Barney Family Foundation
  4. Moving for Melanoma of Delaware
  5. Laverna Hahn Charitable Trust
  6. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA142779, 5T32 CA193145, R01 CA179991, P30-CA008748]
  7. MSKCCTROT Fellowship
  8. Starr Cancer Consortium
  9. Pershing Square Sohn Cancer Research Foundation
  10. Immunogenomics and Precision Oncology Platform
  11. Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To explore factors associated with response and resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy, we analyzed multiple disease sites at autopsy in a patient with widely metastatic melanoma who had a heterogeneous response. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six melanoma specimens (four premortem, 22 postmortem) were subjected to whole exome sequencing. Candidate immunologic markers and gene expression were assessed in 10 cutaneous metastases showing response or progression during therapy. Results: The melanoma was driven by biallelic inactivation of NF1. All lesions had highly concordant mutational profiles and copy number alterations, indicating linear clonal evolution. Expression of candidate immunologic markers was similar in responding and progressing lesions. However, progressing cutaneous metastases were associated with overexpression of genes associated with extracellular matrix and neutrophil function. Conclusions: Although mutational and immunologic differences have been proposed as the primary determinants of heterogeneous response/resistance to targeted therapies and immunotherapies, respectively, differential lesional gene expression profiles may also dictate anti-PD-1 outcomes. (C) 2017 AACR. See related commentary by Wilmott et al., p. 2921

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