4.7 Article

Selective BRAF Inhibitors Induce Marked T-cell Infiltration into Human Metastatic Melanoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 1386-1394

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2479

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) [402761]
  2. Cancer Institute NSW [05/TPG/1-01]
  3. Westmead Millennium Institute by the Health Department of NSW through Sydney West Area Health Service
  4. Australian Cancer Research Foundation
  5. Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of treatment with the potent mutant BRAF inhibitors GSK2118436 or vemurafenib (PLX4720) on immune responses to metastatic melanoma in tissues taken before and after treatment. Experimental Design: Thirty-seven tumor biopsies were collected from 15 patients with unresectable American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III or IV melanoma immediately before and approximately 7 days after the commencement of BRAF inhibitor treatment and at the time of tumor progression. Immunohistochemical staining was carried out on the biopsies using specific antibodies for CD8, CD4, CD20, CD1a, and Granzyme B. Results: Tumor infiltration by CD4(+) and CD8(+) lymphocytes increased markedly following BRAF inhibitor treatment (both rho = 0.015). There was a correlation between the degree of tumor infiltration by CD8(+) and Granzyme B-expressing lymphocytes in post-BRAF inhibitor-treated biopsies (r = 0.690 and rho = 0.013). Increased intratumoral CD8(+) lymphocyte expression was correlated with a reduction in tumor size and an increase in necrosis in posttreatment biopsies (r = -0.793, rho = 0.011; and r = 0.761, rho = 0.004, respectively). Conclusions: The increase in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes induced by treatment with BRAF inhibitors provides strong support for conducting trials that combine BRAF inhibitors with immunotherapy in the hope of prolonging clinical responses. Clin Cancer Res; 18(5); 1386-94. (C)2011 AACR.

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