4.8 Article

Genomic correlates of response to immune checkpoint therapies in clear cell renal cell carcinoma

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 359, 期 6377, 页码 801-805

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.aan5951

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb II-ON consortium
  2. American Association for Cancer Research KureIt Grant for Kidney Cancer Research
  3. Cancer Immunologic Data Commons [NIH U24CA224316]
  4. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Kidney Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE)
  5. Kohlberg chair at Harvard Medical School
  6. Trust Family
  7. Michael Brigham, and Loker Pinard Funds for Kidney Cancer Research at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  8. Gerstner Family Career Development Award
  9. National Cancer Institute [K12CA90628]
  10. U.S. Department of Defense [W81XWH-17-1-0546]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death 1 receptor (PD-1) improve survival in a subset of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). To identify genomic alterations in ccRCC that correlate with response to anti-PD-1 monotherapy, we performed whole-exome sequencing of metastatic ccRCC from 35 patients. We found that clinical benefit was associated with loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene (P = 0.012), which encodes a subunit of the PBAF switch-sucrose nonfermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodeling complex. We confirmed this finding in an independent validation cohort of 63 ccRCC patients treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 (PD-1 ligand) blockade therapy alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4) therapies (P = 0.0071). Gene-expression analysis of PBAF-deficient ccRCC cell lines and PBRM1-deficient tumors revealed altered transcriptional output in JAK-STAT (Janus kinase-signal transducers and activators of transcription), hypoxia, and immune signaling pathways. PBRM1 loss in ccRCC may alter global tumor-cell expression profiles to influence responsiveness to immune checkpoint therapy.

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