为肝细胞癌武装 GPC3 CAR-T 细胞:多少才足够,下一步是什么?
Armouring GPC3 CAR T cells for hepatocellular carcinoma: how much is enough and what comes next?
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Comprehensive Analysis Identifies and Validates the Tumor Microenvironment Subtypes to Predict Anti-Tumor Therapy Efficacy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Comprehensive Analysis Identifies and Validates the Tumor Microenvironment Subtypes to Predict Anti-Tumor Therapy Efficacy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
我们的分析为识别肝癌患者的四种肿瘤微环境聚类提供了一种新方法,并识别了这四种亚型之间的生物学差异并预测了免疫治疗疗效。
本研究的目的是探索并验证基于肿瘤微环境中免疫细胞(淋巴细胞和髓系细胞)、干性细胞和基质细胞的肝细胞癌亚型,并分析各聚类的生物学特征及潜在相关性。
我们使用xCell算法计算细胞评分,并通过k-means聚类得到亚型。在外部验证集中,我们通过神经网络模型验证了结论的稳定性。同时,我们通过拟时序轨迹分析推测了聚类之间的内在联系,并通过通路富集、TMB、CNV等分析加以证实。
根据共识聚类的结果,我们选择k = 4作为最优值,并基于TME中48种细胞的浸润水平得到了四种具有不同生物学特征的不同亚型(C1、C2、C3和C4)。在单因素Cox回归中,C3与C1的风险比(HR)值为2.881(95% CI:1.572-5.279);在多因素Cox回归中,我们校正了年龄和TNM分期,C3与C1的HR值为2.510(95% CI:1.339-4.706)。C1和C2属于免疫活跃型,C3和C4与免疫不敏感型相关,且各聚类之间存在潜在转化关系。我们建立了神经网络模型,该神经网络模型在测试队列中的曲线下面积为0.949;在外部队列中也观察到了相同的生存结果。我们比较了四个聚类在细胞浸润、免疫功能、通路富集、TMB和CNV方面的差异,并推测C1和C2更可能从免疫治疗中获益,C3可能从FGF抑制剂中获益。
The objective of this study was to explore and verify the subtypes in hepatocellular carcinoma based on the immune (lymphocyte and myeloid cells), stem, and stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment and analyze the biological characteristics and potential relevance of each cluster.
We used the xCell algorithm to calculate cell scores and got subtypes by k-means clustering. In the external validation sets, we verified the conclusion stability by a neural network model. Simultaneously, we speculated the inner connection between clusters by pseudotime trajectory analysis and confirmed it by pathway enrichment, TMB, CNV, etc., analysis. RESULT: According to the results of the consensus cluster, we chose k = 4 as the optimal value and got four different subtypes (C1, C2, C3, and C4) with different biological characteristics based on infiltrating levels of 48 cells in TME. In univariable Cox regression, the hazard ratio (HR) value of C3 versus C1 was 2.881 (95% CI: 1.572-5.279); in multivariable Cox regression, we corrected the age and TNM stage, and the HR value of C3 versus C1 was 2.510 (95% CI: 1.339-4.706). C1 and C2 belonged to the immune-active type, C3 and C4 related to the immune-insensitive type and the potential conversion relationships between clusters. We established a neural network model, and the area under the curves of the neural network model was 0.949 in the testing cohort; the same survival results were also observed in the external validation set. We compared the differences in cell infiltration, immune function, pathway enrichment, TMB, and CNV of four clusters and speculated that C1 and C2 were more likely to benefit from immunotherapy and C3 may benefit from FGF inhibitors. DISCUSSION: Our analysis provides a new approach for the identification of four tumor microenvironment clusters in patients with liver cancer and identifies the biological differences and predicts the immunotherapy efficacy between the four subtypes.
在 PubMed 查看 → 出版商原文(DOI) 全文 PDF(PMC)· 可下载 治疗专题与资料阅读指南 资料来源与翻译说明 报告译文或资料问题 →
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。