Serum Levels of Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor Predict Tumor Response and Outcome to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.
IRAE
biomarker
checkpoint inhibitors
immunotherapy
nivolumab
pembrolizumab
prognosis
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
accepted:
09
03
2021
entrez:
19
4
2021
pubmed:
20
4
2021
medline:
20
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer therapy, improving outcomes in the treatment of various malignancies. However, not all patients benefit to the same extend from ICI. Reliable tools to predict treatment response and outcome are missing. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is a marker of immune activation, whose levels are prognostic in various cancers. We evaluated circulating suPAR levels as a novel predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients receiving ICI therapy for solid tumors. A total of n = 87 patients receiving ICI therapy for different solid malignancies as well as 32 healthy controls were included into this study. Serum levels of suPAR were measured by ELISA prior to and sequentially at two time points during ICI therapy. Baseline suPAR serum levels were significantly higher in solid tumor patients compared to healthy controls. Importantly, patients with low suPAR levels both before or during ICI treatment were more likely to have a favorable response to treatment at three and six months, respectively. This finding was confirmed by multivariate binary logistic regression analysis including several clinicopathological parameters. Moreover, circulating suPAR levels before and during therapy were an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS). As such, patients with initial suPAR levels above our ideal prognostic cut-off value (4.86 ng/ml) had a median OS of only 160 days compared to 705 days for patients with suPAR levels below this cut-off value. Finally, low baseline suPAR levels identified a subgroup of patients who experienced ICI-related side effects which in turn were associated with favorable treatment response and outcome. Our data suggest that measurements of suPAR serum levels are a previously unknown, easily accessible tool to predict individual treatment response and outcome to ICI therapy. Circulating suPAR might therefore be implemented into stratification algorithms to identify the ideal candidates for ICI treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer therapy, improving outcomes in the treatment of various malignancies. However, not all patients benefit to the same extend from ICI. Reliable tools to predict treatment response and outcome are missing. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) is a marker of immune activation, whose levels are prognostic in various cancers. We evaluated circulating suPAR levels as a novel predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients receiving ICI therapy for solid tumors.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of n = 87 patients receiving ICI therapy for different solid malignancies as well as 32 healthy controls were included into this study. Serum levels of suPAR were measured by ELISA prior to and sequentially at two time points during ICI therapy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Baseline suPAR serum levels were significantly higher in solid tumor patients compared to healthy controls. Importantly, patients with low suPAR levels both before or during ICI treatment were more likely to have a favorable response to treatment at three and six months, respectively. This finding was confirmed by multivariate binary logistic regression analysis including several clinicopathological parameters. Moreover, circulating suPAR levels before and during therapy were an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS). As such, patients with initial suPAR levels above our ideal prognostic cut-off value (4.86 ng/ml) had a median OS of only 160 days compared to 705 days for patients with suPAR levels below this cut-off value. Finally, low baseline suPAR levels identified a subgroup of patients who experienced ICI-related side effects which in turn were associated with favorable treatment response and outcome.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that measurements of suPAR serum levels are a previously unknown, easily accessible tool to predict individual treatment response and outcome to ICI therapy. Circulating suPAR might therefore be implemented into stratification algorithms to identify the ideal candidates for ICI treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33869041
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.646883
pmc: PMC8047604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
646883Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Loosen, Gorgulho, Jördens, Schulze-Hagen, Beier, Vucur, Schneider, Koppe, Mertens, Kather, Tacke, Keitel, Brümmendorf, Roderburg and Luedde.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 01;8:14381
pubmed: 28146145
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Mar;145:197-209
pubmed: 33493979
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2003 Jul;9(3):241-6
pubmed: 14507113
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Aug 17;12(8):
pubmed: 32824580
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Feb 26;100(8):e24664
pubmed: 33663076
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Nov 15;7(1):306
pubmed: 31730012
Science. 2013 Dec 20;342(6165):1432-3
pubmed: 24357284
Nat Med. 2017 Jan;23(1):100-106
pubmed: 27941791
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Dec 4;7(1):341
pubmed: 31801636
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1345-1356
pubmed: 28889792
Carcinogenesis. 2019 Aug 22;40(8):947-955
pubmed: 30805627
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1015-1026
pubmed: 28212060
Cancer Discov. 2016 Feb;6(2):202-16
pubmed: 26645196
J Intensive Care. 2019 Apr 27;7:26
pubmed: 31061709
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Nov 8;7(1):295
pubmed: 31703593
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):351-357
pubmed: 29327044
Blood. 2010 Sep 2;116(9):1593-603
pubmed: 20466854
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2509-20
pubmed: 26028255
JHEP Rep. 2020 Jan 31;2(2):100080
pubmed: 32140677
Cancer Med. 2021 Apr;10(7):2216-2231
pubmed: 33655698
Thromb Haemost. 2015 Aug;114(2):379-89
pubmed: 25925849
Liver Int. 2015 Feb;35(2):601-7
pubmed: 25348952
Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R63
pubmed: 21324198
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Aug;81:116-129
pubmed: 28623775
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Aug 19;7(1):222
pubmed: 31426863
Oncotarget. 2015 Dec 29;6(42):44239-53
pubmed: 26517519
Liver Int. 2014 Oct;34(9):1330-9
pubmed: 24575897
Mol Cancer Ther. 2015 Apr;14(4):847-56
pubmed: 25695955
Front Immunol. 2018 Jun 28;9:1474
pubmed: 30002656
Curr Oncol. 2020 Apr;27(Suppl 2):S106-S114
pubmed: 32368180
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Jul 1;25(13):3753-3758
pubmed: 30787022
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
Dis Markers. 2009;27(3):157-72
pubmed: 19893210
Oncotarget. 2018 Jun 5;9(43):27027-27038
pubmed: 29930748
Br J Cancer. 2016 Feb 2;114(3):256-61
pubmed: 26794281
Nat Commun. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):729
pubmed: 33526794
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Med Oncol. 2013 Jun;30(2):540
pubmed: 23512428
Lung Cancer. 2017 Apr;106:1-7
pubmed: 28285682