Deep learning-based scoring of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes is prognostic in primary melanoma and predictive to PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in melanoma metastases.
Cutaneous melanoma
Digital pathology
Predictive biomarkers
Prognostic biomarkers
Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes
Journal
EBioMedicine
ISSN: 2352-3964
Titre abrégé: EBioMedicine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101647039
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
28
01
2023
revised:
15
05
2023
accepted:
24
05
2023
medline:
17
7
2023
pubmed:
10
6
2023
entrez:
9
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent advances in digital pathology have enabled accurate and standardised enumeration of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Here, we aim to evaluate TILs as a percentage electronic TIL score (eTILs) and investigate its prognostic and predictive relevance in cutaneous melanoma. We included stage I to IV cutaneous melanoma patients and used hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides for TIL analysis. We assessed eTILs as a continuous and categorical variable using the published cut-off of 16.6% and applied Cox regression models to evaluate associations of eTILs with relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and overall survival. We compared eTILs of the primaries with matched metastasis. Moreover, we assessed the predictive relevance of eTILs in therapy-naïve metastases according to the first-line therapy. We analysed 321 primary cutaneous melanomas and 191 metastatic samples. In simple Cox regression, tumour thickness (p < 0.0001), presence of ulceration (p = 0.0001) and eTILs ≤16.6% (p = 0.0012) were found to be significant unfavourable prognostic factors for RFS. In multiple Cox regression, eTILs ≤16.6% (p = 0.0161) remained significant and downgraded the current staging. Lower eTILs in the primary tissue was associated with unfavourable relapse-free (p = 0.0014) and distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.0056). In multiple Cox regression adjusted for tumour thickness and ulceration, eTILs as continuous remained significant (p = 0.019). When comparing TILs in primary tissue and corresponding metastasis of the same patient, eTILs in metastases was lower than in primary melanomas (p < 0.0001). In therapy-naïve metastases, an eTILs >12.2% was associated with longer progression-free survival (p = 0.037) and melanoma-specific survival (p = 0.0038) in patients treated with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. In multiple Cox regression, lactate dehydrogenase (p < 0.0001) and eTILs ≤12.2% (p = 0.0130) were significantly associated with unfavourable melanoma-specific survival. Assessment of TILs is prognostic in primary melanoma samples, and the eTILs complements staging. In therapy-naïve metastases, eTILs ≤12.2% is predictive of unfavourable survival outcomes in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based therapy. See a detailed list of funding bodies in the Acknowledgements section at the end of the manuscript.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent advances in digital pathology have enabled accurate and standardised enumeration of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Here, we aim to evaluate TILs as a percentage electronic TIL score (eTILs) and investigate its prognostic and predictive relevance in cutaneous melanoma.
METHODS
METHODS
We included stage I to IV cutaneous melanoma patients and used hematoxylin-eosin-stained slides for TIL analysis. We assessed eTILs as a continuous and categorical variable using the published cut-off of 16.6% and applied Cox regression models to evaluate associations of eTILs with relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and overall survival. We compared eTILs of the primaries with matched metastasis. Moreover, we assessed the predictive relevance of eTILs in therapy-naïve metastases according to the first-line therapy.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
We analysed 321 primary cutaneous melanomas and 191 metastatic samples. In simple Cox regression, tumour thickness (p < 0.0001), presence of ulceration (p = 0.0001) and eTILs ≤16.6% (p = 0.0012) were found to be significant unfavourable prognostic factors for RFS. In multiple Cox regression, eTILs ≤16.6% (p = 0.0161) remained significant and downgraded the current staging. Lower eTILs in the primary tissue was associated with unfavourable relapse-free (p = 0.0014) and distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.0056). In multiple Cox regression adjusted for tumour thickness and ulceration, eTILs as continuous remained significant (p = 0.019). When comparing TILs in primary tissue and corresponding metastasis of the same patient, eTILs in metastases was lower than in primary melanomas (p < 0.0001). In therapy-naïve metastases, an eTILs >12.2% was associated with longer progression-free survival (p = 0.037) and melanoma-specific survival (p = 0.0038) in patients treated with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. In multiple Cox regression, lactate dehydrogenase (p < 0.0001) and eTILs ≤12.2% (p = 0.0130) were significantly associated with unfavourable melanoma-specific survival.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of TILs is prognostic in primary melanoma samples, and the eTILs complements staging. In therapy-naïve metastases, eTILs ≤12.2% is predictive of unfavourable survival outcomes in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based therapy.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
See a detailed list of funding bodies in the Acknowledgements section at the end of the manuscript.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37295047
pii: S2352-3964(23)00209-8
doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104644
pmc: PMC10363450
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104644Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests SF received personal fees from Kyowa Kirin and Takeda Pharmaceuticals, institutional grants from NeraCare, SkylineDx, and BioNTech, all outside the submitted work. TA reports institutional grants and personal fees from Novartis, institutional grants from NeraCare, Sanofi, SkylineDx, personal fees from CeCaVa, Pierre Fabre, BMS all outside the submitted work, participate on a data safety monitoring board for Unicancer. DLR reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Cepheid, Konica—Minolta, Lilly, NextCure personal fees from Cell Signaling Technology, Danaher, Fluidigm, GSK, Merck, Monopteros, NanoString, Odonate, Paige. AI, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Ventana and Verily, royalties from Rarecyte, all outside the submitted work. CG reports grants and personal fees from NeraCare, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, personal fees from Amgen, BMS, MSD, and Philogen, all outside the submitted work. TE reports personal fees from Novartis, BMS, Almirall Hermal, CureVac, Sanofi, MSD, Pierre Fabre and institutional grants from MSD, Sanofi, BMS, Pfizer, GenenTech, Seagan, Regeneron all outside the submitted work. IB reports having received speaker fees from Bayer, Pfizer, Takeda and AstraZeneca. MR reports grants from AB Science, Abbott, AbbVie, Alcedis, Almirall Hermal, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CureVac, DelArrivo, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Dynavax Tech, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GSK, Hoffmann La Roche, Hokusai, Idera Pharmaceuticals, Ilkos Therapeutic, Immatics biotechnologies, Incyte, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, LEO Pharma, Merck, MSD Sharp &Dohme, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, PellePharm, Pfizer, Philogen, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Aventis, Schering Plough, Sun Pharma, Technische Universitat Dresden, Topaz Therapeutics, UCB, Universitatsklinik Essen, Universitatklinik Koln, Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung, 4SC. The other authors report no potential conflicts of interest.
Références
JAMA Surg. 2021 Jul 1;156(7):675-676
pubmed: 33825807
Adv Anat Pathol. 2017 Sep;24(5):235-251
pubmed: 28777142
Mod Pathol. 2021 Mar;34(3):562-571
pubmed: 33005020
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Aug;97(32):e11769
pubmed: 30095632
Front Immunol. 2020 Sep 10;11:2105
pubmed: 33013886
J Nucl Med. 2022 May;63(5):720-726
pubmed: 34413145
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Nov 01;145(11):1012-1019
pubmed: 31486841
Cancer. 1996 Apr 1;77(7):1303-10
pubmed: 8608507
Br J Cancer. 2022 Jun;126(12):1663-1675
pubmed: 35228677
Lab Invest. 1996 Jan;74(1):43-7
pubmed: 8569196
Oncologist. 2020 Jan;25(1):e147-e159
pubmed: 31578273
Cancer Sci. 2016 Dec;107(12):1730-1735
pubmed: 27727484
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
JAMA Oncol. 2023 Jan 1;9(1):51-60
pubmed: 36394839
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020 Sep 1;58(3):619-628
pubmed: 32267920
Front Immunol. 2022 Feb 11;13:794175
pubmed: 35222378
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Dec 20;81(24):1893-904
pubmed: 2593166
Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2019 May;32(3):412-423
pubmed: 30506645
Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2020 Jan;33(1):63-73
pubmed: 31402559
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):2959-66
pubmed: 25071121
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2017 Aug 15;1(1):26
pubmed: 29872708
Pathology. 2016 Feb;48(2):177-87
pubmed: 27020390
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jun 1;155(6):688-693
pubmed: 31042258
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2021 Dec 1;7(1):150
pubmed: 34853355
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jan 10;41(2):186-197
pubmed: 36166727
Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 8;11(1):20059
pubmed: 34625620
Ann Oncol. 2014 Aug;25(8):1544-50
pubmed: 24608200
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 Jul;89(1):140-142
pubmed: 36806644
J Cancer. 2017 Feb 25;8(5):761-773
pubmed: 28382138
Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Feb;124(2):192-8
pubmed: 22040834
BMC Bioinformatics. 2022 Feb 7;23(1):61
pubmed: 35130839
Nat Commun. 2021 Jul 2;12(1):4098
pubmed: 34215730
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):568-71
pubmed: 25428505
Cancer Res. 2022 Sep 16;82(18):3275-3290
pubmed: 35834277
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Mar 09;13:748674
pubmed: 35355708
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 4;7(1):16878
pubmed: 29203879
Nat Commun. 2021 Sep 23;12(1):5606
pubmed: 34556668
Hum Pathol. 2018 Sep;79:188-198
pubmed: 29885403
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):559-569
pubmed: 30650045
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Sep;34(9):2096-2105
pubmed: 32078191
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2019 Aug;177:133-139
pubmed: 31319941
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Nov 26;21(23):
pubmed: 33256089
Br J Cancer. 2005 Aug 22;93(4):387-91
pubmed: 16106245
Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 19;11(1):1834
pubmed: 33469107
Front Oncol. 2019 Nov 05;9:1148
pubmed: 31750245
Nat Commun. 2020 Mar 12;11(1):1335
pubmed: 32165639
Dermatology. 2020;236(6):481-492
pubmed: 32023619
Mol Diagn Ther. 2020 Jun;24(3):365-370
pubmed: 32232741
N Engl J Med. 2022 Dec 8;387(23):2113-2125
pubmed: 36477031
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May 26;8:109-22
pubmed: 27307765
Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 29;10(1):5440
pubmed: 31784511
World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jul 25;17(1):129
pubmed: 31345228
J Cell Biol. 2010 May 31;189(5):777-82
pubmed: 20513764
Front Oncol. 2020 Aug 20;10:1559
pubmed: 33014803
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Aug 1;27(15):4265-4276
pubmed: 34341053
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Nov 10;40(32):3741-3749
pubmed: 35709414
Science. 2016 Apr 8;352(6282):189-96
pubmed: 27124452
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Oct 30;158:191-207
pubmed: 34757258
J Clin Pathol. 2019 Feb;72(2):157-164
pubmed: 30518631
Semin Cancer Biol. 2022 Feb;79:4-17
pubmed: 33819567
J Invest Dermatol. 2006 Feb;126(2):393-8
pubmed: 16374454
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Oct 15;27(20):5557-5565
pubmed: 34088723
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jan;31(1):153-159
pubmed: 31912791
Lancet. 2022 Apr 30;399(10336):1718-1729
pubmed: 35367007
Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2;11(1):2809
pubmed: 33531581
Pharmacol Res. 2018 Oct;136:151-159
pubmed: 30145328
EBioMedicine. 2022 Aug;82:104143
pubmed: 35810563