Cancer Cell International (Sep 2024)

Pan-cancer analysis reveals CCL5/CSF2 as potential predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors

  • Yi-Chao Chen,
  • Wei-Zhong Zheng,
  • Chun-Peng Liu,
  • Yong-Qiang Zhao,
  • Jun-Wei Li,
  • Ze-Sen Du,
  • Tian-Tian Zhai,
  • Hao-Yu Lin,
  • Wen-Qi Shi,
  • Shan-Qing Cai,
  • Feng Pan,
  • Si-Qi Qiu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-024-03496-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Currently, there are no optimal biomarkers available for distinguishing patients who will respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapies. Consequently, the exploration of novel biomarkers that can predict responsiveness to ICIs is crucial in the field of immunotherapy. Methods We estimated the proportions of 22 immune cell components in 10 cancer types (6,128 tumors) using the CIBERSORT algorithm, and further classified patients based on their tumor immune cell proportions in a pan-cancer setting using k-means clustering. Differentially expressed immune genes between the patient subgroups were identified, and potential predictive biomarkers for ICIs were explored. Finally, the predictive value of the identified biomarkers was verified in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who received ICIs. Results Our study identified two subgroups of patients with distinct immune infiltrating phenotypes and differing clinical outcomes. The patient subgroup with improved outcomes displayed tumors enriched with genes related to immune response regulation and pathway activation. Furthermore, CCL5 and CSF2 were identified as immune-related hub-genes and were found to be prognostic in a pan-cancer setting. Importantly, UC and ESCC patients with high expression of CCL5 and low expression of CSF2 responded better to ICIs. Conclusion We demonstrated CCL5 and CSF2 as potential novel biomarkers for predicting the response to ICIs in patients with UC and ESCC. The predictive value of these biomarkers in other cancer types warrants further evaluation in future studies.

Keywords