Diao, Lixia

Abstract Systematic multiomic analysis has revealed ancestry-dependent molecular alterations, but their impact on the efficacy of anticancer treatment is yet largely unknown. In this study, we analyzed clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and found that only 8,779/102,721 (8.5%) oncology clinical trials posted information on enrollment by race/ethnicity. The underrepresentation of non-White populations suggests that it remains challenging to determine differences in the efficacy of antitumor treatments among different racial groups. Through a comprehensive analysis of clinically actionable genes, imputed drug responses, and immune features, we identified potential differences in treatment responses to targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy between different ancestral populations. Further analysis of multiple independent cohorts confirmed some of our key findings. Such potential ancestral effects are also identified in response to emerging new treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and proteolysis-targeting chimeras. These findings are made publicly available in a comprehensive web portal, Ancestral Differences of Efficacy in Cancers (https://hanlaboratory.com/ADEC), to facilitate their further investigation. Significance: Our study charts a global landscape of ancestry-associated differences in therapeutic efficacy, highlighting the importance of considering ancestry in anticancer therapies.

Background To determine whether antibiotic treatment is a risk factor for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) across different patients with cancer receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies. Methods The retrospective analysis includes clinical information from 767 patients with cancer treated at Hunan Cancer Hospital from 2017 to 2020. The pharmacovigilance data analysis includes individual cases of 38,705 safety reports from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2014 to 2020, and 25,122 cases of safety reports from the World Health Organization database VigiBase from 2014 to 2019. All cases that received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment were included. Multiomics data from patients across 25 cancer types were download from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Logistic regression and propensity score algorithm was employed to calculate OR of irAEs. Results Retrospective analysis of in-house patients showed that irAE potential risks are higher in all cancer (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.22, false discovery rate (FDR) adjusted-p=1.93×10−3) and patients with lung cancer (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.95, FDR adjusted-p=1.93×10−3) when using antibiotics. Potential risk of irAEs in patients with lung cancer with antibiotic treatment is significantly higher in FAERS (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.59; FDR adjusted-p=1.62×10−5) and VigiBase (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.59, FDR adjusted-p=0.05). Mechanistically, decreased microbial diversity caused by antibiotics use may increase the irAE risk through mediating the irAE-related factors. Conclusions Our study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the associations of irAEs and antibiotic during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy across a wide spectrum of cancers by analyzing multisource data. Administration of antibiotics should be carefully evaluated in patients with cancer treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 to avoid potentially increasing irAE risk.

Abstract Background Accumulated evidence supports the existence of sex-associated differences in immune systems. Understanding the role of sex in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is important for management of irAE in patients receiving immunotherapy. Methods We performed meta-analysis on published clinical study data and multivariable logistic regression on pharmacovigilance data and applied a propensity algorithm to The Cancer Genome Atlas omics data. We further validated our observations in 2 independent in-house cohorts of 179 and 767 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Results A meta-analysis using 13 clinical studies that reported on 1096 female patients (36.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 35.0% to 38.5%) and 1886 male patients (63.2%, 95% CI = 61.5% to 65.0%) demonstrated no statistically significant irAE risk difference between the sexes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.54, 2-sided P = .21). Multivariable logistic regression analysis of 12 225 patients from the Food and drug administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and 10 979 patients from VigiBase showed no statistically significant difference in irAEs by sex. A propensity score algorithm used on multi-omics data for 6019 patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas found no statistically significant difference by sex for irAE-related factors or pathways. The retrospective analysis of 2 in-house patient cohorts validated these results (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.47, false discovery rate = 0.13, for cohort 1; OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.57, false discovery rate = 0.39, for cohort 2). Conclusions We observed minimal sex-associated differences in irAEs among cancer patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It may be unnecessary to consider sex effects for irAE management in clinical practice.

Suppression of ZEB1 through miR-200 expression or HDAC inhibition with mocetinostat sensitizes resistant KRAS mutant lung cancers to MEK inhibition.

Abstract Background: We recently have reported that co-mutations within KRAS-mutated lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) define a distinct biological phenotype and may offer insights into therapeutic targeting using this classification system. The analysis revealed striking differences in checkpoint ligand expression and T cell infiltration between TP53 and STK11 (LKB1) co-mutated KRAS LUAD. We, therefore, hypothesized that loss of LKB1promotes an immune-suppressed phenotype in KRAS LUAD. To test this, we analyzed 100 immune-related genes from The Cancer Genome Atlas datasets, as well as three other sets of resected tumors from NSLC patients from MD Anderson Cancer Center. Results: Our results revealed that tumors lacking LKB1 (LKB1-loss), as defined by mutation or gene-expression signature, resulted in a down regulation of: tumor associated immunosuppressive ligands, PD-L1, PD-L2, B7-H3, B7-H4, HVEM; T cell associated immunosuppressive ligands PD-1, CTLA-4, BTLA; co-stimulation ligands such as CD80, -86, -40L, and -40. We further examined if this loss of immunosuppression and co-stimulation resulted in changes in markers of T cell phenotypes. Indeed, tumors lacking LKB1-loss tumors demonstrated a distinct lack absence of several T cell markers including CD3, -4, & -8, but also RORC, T-bet, GATA-3, and FoxP3. To determine if myeloid cell populations, known mediators of immune suppression, were also diminished in LKB1-loss tumors, we analyzed expression of CD11c, -103, -11b, -68, and CD33. Consistent with T cell makers and suppressive ligand markers, myeloid markers were down regulated in LKB1-loss tumors. Because common immune suppression markers were lost, we then examined the expression of antigen presentation (HLA-I, HLA-II) and amino acid transporters as possible alternative methods for immune suppression. In LKB1-loss tumors, both HLA-I and HLA-II markers were down regulated, compared to tumors with intact LKB1 expression. Furthermore, genes associated with the antigen presentation complex, LMP2, TAP1&2, and B2M were also down regulated. In contrast to the immune markers described above, cationic transporters (SLC7A2), anionic transporters (SLC7A11), and neutral transporters (SLC3A2) were universally upregulated in LKB1-loss tumors. Conclusions: LKB1 loss is associated with an inert immune phenotype. Our data suggests that reduced antigen presentation and amino acid depletion, but not checkpoint factors or MDSCs, are likely mediator of this phenotype. Citation Format: Warren L. Denning, Ferdinandos Skoulidis, Li Shen, Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou, Lixia Diao, Yanyan Lou, Lauren A. Byers, Jing Wang, Jaime R. Canales, Ignacio I. Wistuba, John Weinstein, Don L. Gibbons, John V. Heymach. Loss of LKB1 mediates an immune inert phenotype in human lung adenocarcinoma. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 4137.