Dataset Information

Sex Disparities of Genomic Determinants in Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the acknowledged sex-related differences in immune response and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy, little is known about the sex disparities in melanoma of novel genomic determinants for ICI therapies.

Methods

Pretreatment genomic profiles and clinical characteristics of 631 melanoma patients treated with ICIs (i.e., inhibitors of CTLA-4, PD-1/PD-L1, or both) were comprehensively curated. Genomic factors, i.e., significantly mutated genes (SMGs), mutational signatures, and molecular subtypes were identified, and their associations with ICI treatment efficacy in male and female patients were evaluated.

Results

Of the 15 SMGs identified in this study, three genes (i.e., CFH, DGKG, and PPP6C) were found to exhibit sex differences with respect to ICI efficacy. Among these, CFH mutations exhibited both response rate and survival benefits in male, but not in female patients. A total of four mutational signatures (i.e., signatures 1, 4, 7, and 11) were extracted. Male patients with signature 4 (also known as smoking-related signature) had an inferior ICI response rate and overall survival. However, this association was not significant in females. An immune subtype based on mutational activities was found to be significantly associated with poor ICI survival in female patients.

Conclusion

We uncovered several sex-dependent genomic correlates of response to ICI treatment, such as male-biased CFH mutations and signature 4 and the female-biased immune resistance subtype. The findings derived from this research provide clues for exploring different immunotherapeutic approaches in male and female patients with melanoma.

SUBMITTER: Shi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594267 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), targeting CTLA-4 or PD-1 molecules, have shown impressive therapeutic results. However, only 20-40% of advanced melanoma patients have durable responses to ICI, and these positive effects must be balanced against severe off-target immune toxicity and high costs. This urges the development of predictive biomarkers for ICI response to select patients with likely clinical benefit from treatment. Although many candidate biomarkers exist, a systematic overview of biomarkers and their usefulness is lacking. OBJECTIVES:Here, we systematically review the current literature of clinical data of ICI treatment to provide an overview of candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI in melanoma patients. METHODS:To identify studies on biomarkers for clinical response or survival to ICI therapy in melanoma patients, we performed a systematic search in OVID MEDLINE and retrieved 429 publications, of which 67 met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS:Blood and genomic biomarkers were mainly studied for CTLA-4 ICI, while tumor tissue markers were analyzed for both CTLA-4 and PD-1 ICI. Blood cytology and soluble factors correlated more frequently to overall survival (OS) than to response, indicating their prognostic rather than predictive nature. Systemic T-cell response and regulation markers correlated to response, but progression-free survival or OS were not analyzed. Tumor tissue analyses revealed response correlations with mutational load, neoantigen load, immune-related gene expression, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration at the invasive margin. The predictive value of PD-L1 varied, possibly due to the influence of T-cell infiltration on tumor PD-L1 expression. Genomic biomarker studies addressed CTLA-4 and other immune-related genes. CONCLUSION:This review outlines all published biomarkers for ICI therapy and highlights potential candidate markers for future research. To date, PD-L1 is the best studied biomarker for PD-1 ICI response. The most promising candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI response have not yet been identified. Variations in outcome parameters, statistical power, and analyses hampered summary of the results. Further investigation of biomarkers in larger patient cohorts using standardized objectives and outcome measures is recommended.