4.8 Article

Neoantigen responses, immune correlates, and favorable outcomes after ipilimumab treatment of patients with prostate cancer

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 537, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz3577

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb
  2. Stand Up To Cancer-Cancer Research Institute Cancer Immunology Dream Team Translational Research Grant [SU2CAACR-DT1012]
  3. Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF)
  4. Cancer Prevention Research in Texas Grant [RP120108]
  5. NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI) [R01 CA1633793]
  6. NIH/NCI Award [P30CA016672]
  7. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Prostate Cancer Moon Shot Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumors with high mutational burden (TMB) tend to be responsive to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) because there are neoantigens available for targeting by reinvigorated T cells, whereas those with low TMB demonstrate limited clinical responses. To determine whether antigen-specific T cell responses can be elicited after treatment with ICB in cancers that have a low TMB, we conducted a clinical trial with ipilimumab in 30 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We identified two distinct cohorts by survival and progression times: favorable (n = 9) and unfavorable (n = 10). Patients in the favorable cohort had high intratumoral CD8 T cell density and IFN-gamma response gene signature and/or antigen-specific T cell responses. Two patients with a relatively low TMB had T cell responses against unique neoantigens. Moreover, six of nine patients in the favorable group are still alive at the time of analysis, with survival ranging from 33 to 54 months after treatment. All 10 patients in the unfavorable cohort have succumbed to their disease and had survival ranging from 0.6 to 10.3 months. Collectively, our data indicate that immunological correlates associated with effector T cell responses are observed in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who benefit from ICB.

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