Cited by 1,039Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrative molecular and clinical modeling of clinical outcomes to PD1 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma

Open access

Liu, David, Schilling, Bastian, Liu, Derek, Sucker, Antje, Livingstone, Elisabeth, Jerby-Arnon, Livnat, Zimmer, Lisa, Gutzmer, Ralf, Satzger, Imke, Loquai, Carmen, Grabbe, Stephan, Vokes, Natalie, Margolis, Claire A., Conway, Jake, He, Meng Xiao, Elmarakeby, Haitham, Dietlein, Felix, Miao, Diana, Tracy, Adam, Gogas, Helen, Goldinger, Simone M., Utikal, Jochen, Blank, Christian U., Rauschenberg, Ricarda, von Bubnoff, Dagmar, Krackhardt, Angela, Weide, Benjamin, Haferkamp, Sebastian, Kiecker, Felix, Izar, Ben, Garraway, Levi, Regev, Aviv, Flaherty, Keith, Paschen, Annette, Van Allen, Eliezer M., Schadendorf, Dirk·2019·Nature Medicine

DOI 10.1038/s41591-019-0654-5PMC PMC6898788

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in many tumor types, but predictors of responsiveness to anti-PD1 ICB are incompletely characterized. In this study, we analyzed a clinically annotated cohort of patients with melanoma (n = 144) treated with anti-PD1 ICB, with whole-exome and whole-transcriptome sequencing of pre-treatment tumors. We found that tumor mutational burden as a predictor of response was confounded by melanoma subtype, whereas multiple novel genomic and transcriptomic features predicted selective response, including features associated with MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation. Furthermore, previous anti-CTLA4 ICB exposure was associated with different predictors of response compared to tumors that were naive to ICB, suggesting selective immune effects of previous exposure to anti-CTLA4 ICB. Finally, we developed parsimonious models integrating clinical, genomic and transcriptomic features to predict intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB in individual tumors, with validation in smaller independent cohorts limited by the availability of comprehensive data. Broadly, we present a framework to discover predictive features and build models of ICB therapeutic response.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-019-0654-5

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Fig. 1 Cohort genomic and clinical characteristics and association of TMB with response. a, CoMut plot showing association between clinical and genomic characteristics. Each column represents a tumor. Tumors are ordered by best RECIST criteria response (CR, PR, PD, SD or MR), and within each response subgroup by decreasing nonsynonymous (Nonsyn) mutational load (top row). Nonsynonymous mutational burden is further subdivided into clonal (purple) and subclonal (light purple) mutational load. Mutational signatures (sig) refer to the inferred relative contribution of UV-induced mutations, alkylating DNA damage process and other mutational signatures (aging+). The primary type of melanoma (skin, occult, acral or mucosal) is indicated. Tumor purity is the inferred proportion of the tumor sample that is from cancer cells compared to other cell types (Methods). The dominant mutational signature (that is, the mutational signature associated with the highest proportion of mutations) is indicated. Mutations in BRAF, NRAS and NF1 are shown for each tumor. b, Mutational load (mut load) in progressors (n = 65 patients), responders (n = 55 patients) and patients with SD and MR (n = 24 patients). Nonsynonymous mutational load is higher in responders (CR and PR) than in progressors (two-sided MWW, P = 0.026), but is not significantly different between responders and patients having SD or MR as the best RECIST response (two-sided MWW, P = 0.14). c, Mutational load by melanoma type. Different melanoma types have different mutational loads (Kruskal–Wallis, P = 2.4 × 10−5): mutational load is higher in cutaneous and occult melanomas (n = 124 patients) than in acral and mucosal melanomas (n = 20 patients; median 297.5 versus 58; two-sided MWW, P = 1.1 × 10−6). d, Response to anti-PD1 ICB by melanoma type. Cutaneous and occult melanomas (n = 124 patients) have higher response rates (~40% CR and PR) versus acral and mucosal melanomas (n = 20 patients, 20%; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.06). e, Mutational load in responders versus progressors stratified by melanoma type. There was no significant difference between responder and progressor mutational loads when melanomas were stratified by type (two-sided MWW; progressors versus responders (PD/R): skin (n = 42/43), P = 0.27; occult (n = 10/8), P = 0.35; acral (n = 7/2), P = 0.19; mucosal (n = 6/2), P = 0.40). Mutational load was also not a significant predictor of response in combined logistic regression after adjusting for melanoma type (P = 0.24). f, TMB in responders versus nonresponders, stratified by skin or occult melanomas versus mucosal or acral melanomas. Within each subgroup, responders trended toward having higher TMB than nonresponders (cutaneous/occult (n = 52 progressors and 51 responders): MWW, P = 0.14; mucosal/acral (n = 13 progressors and 4 responders): MWW, P = 0.08). Notably, responders with mucosal or acral melanoma (n = 4) had a lower mutational load than progressors with cutaneous or occult melanoma (n = 52; MWW, P = 0.03). Boxplots: box limits indicate the IQR (25th to 75th percentiles), with a center line indicating the median. Whiskers show the value ranges up to 1.5 × IQR above the 75th or below the 25th percentiles, with outliers beyond those ranges shown as individual points. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. NS, not significant.CC BY · PubMed Central

Fig. 2 Genomic and transcriptomic features associated with response. All P values are unadjusted, unless otherwise indicated. a, Tumor heterogeneity, defined as the proportion of subclonal mutations in each tumor (Methods), in responders (CR or PR) versus progressors (PD). Progressors (n = 65 patients) had greater heterogeneity than responders (n = 55 patients; two-sided MWW, P = 0.02). b, Tumor ploidy, defined as the overall genomic copy number (a normal diploid cell has a copy number of 2; Methods), in responders versus progressors. Responders (n = 55 patients) had higher tumor ploidy than progressors (n = 65 patients; two-sided MWW, P = 0.04). c, Tumor purity, defined as the proportion of DNA from tumor versus other cells in the sample (Methods), in responders versus progressors. Progressors (n = 65 patients) had higher tumor purity than responders (n = 55 patients; two-sided MWW, P = 0.04). d, Response versus progression in TAP2-amplified tumors versus other tumors. TAP2 amplification (n = 6 patients) was associated with response (two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.008). e, Response versus progression in tumors with amplified MHC-I HLA genes (HLA-A, HLA-B or HLA-C) versus other tumors. MHC-I HLA amplification (n = 6 patients) was associated with response (two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.008). f, Venn diagram showing the overlap of TAP2-amplified tumors and tumors with amplification of MHC-I HLA genes. Four tumors had amplifications on chromosome 6, including the MHC-I genes HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C and TAP2 and two tumors each had amplifications in one but not the other region, for a total of eight tumors with amplifications in either. g, Difference in the median expression and two-sided MWW P value of association between 938 immune-related genes56 and features in responders versus progressors. Expression levels of MHC-II HLA genes (red), MHC-I HLA genes and antigen-presentation machinery (APM)-related genes (orange) are shown. h, Hierarchical clustering of the correlation matrix between genomic, clinical and transcriptomic features associated with response. Color indicates the Pearson correlation between features, from perfect negative correlation (Pearson, r = −1, blue) to perfect positive correlation (Pearson, r = 1, red). An immune-related cluster of MHC-I- and MHC-II-related gene expression is observed, with subclusters of MHC-I and MHC-II genes. Mutational and neoantigen load are highly correlated and form a cluster independently from the immune cluster (for example, Pearson correlation, r = 0.15, P = 0.11 between ssGSEA of MHC-II HLA genes and nonsynonymous mutational load). Purity is negatively correlated with the immune cluster and is independent of ploidy and heterogeneity. The sample size for each correlation depended on the number of available data points: correlations involving exclusively genomic or clinical data had n = 144 tumor samples, whereas correlations involving transcriptomic features had n = 121 tumor samples with data available. Tx, treatment. Boxplots: box limits indicate the IQR (25th to 75th percentile), with a center line indicating the median. Whiskers show the value ranges up to 1.5 × IQR above the 75th or below the 25th percentile, with outliers beyond those ranges shown as individual points. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; NS, not significant.CC BY · PubMed Central

Fig. 3 Differential predictors of response and progression in ipilimumab-treated tumors versus ipilimumab-naive tumors. a, Timeline showing when sequenced biopsies were obtained from tumors that were treated with ipilimumab or naive to ipilimumab in the course of therapy. Subsequent analyses focused on comparing tumor biopsies obtained after ipilimumab treatment (n = 45 WES, n = 34 RNA-seq) to ipilimumab-naive tumor biopsies (n = 84 WES, n = 74 RNA-seq). b, Best RECIST response by ipilimumab pretreatment status. There was no difference between the distribution of responses in naive (n = 84) and pretreated (n = 60) patients (two-sided chi-squared test, P = 0.44; degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 3). c, ssGSEA of MHC-II HLA genes (Methods) in responders (n = 47 patients) versus progressors (n = 56 patients) in the overall cohort. MHC-II scores were higher in responders than in progressors (two-sided MWW, P = 0.03). d, ssGSEA of MHC-II HLA genes in responders versus progressors in the post-ipilimumab-treatment subgroup. MHC-II scores were higher in responders (n = 11 patients) than in progressors (n = 16 patients; two-sided MWW, P = 0.03). e, ssGSEA of MHC-II HLA genes in responders (n = 31 patients) versus progressors (n = 34 patients) in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup. There was no significant difference in MHC-II scores between responders and progressors (two-sided MWW, P = 0.31). f, MHC-II HLA gene set scores (ssGSEA) in responders (n = 10 patients) versus progressors (n = 22 patients) in a validation cohort (Methods; two-sided MWW, P = 0.34). g, MHC-II HLA gene set scores (ssGSEA) in responders (n = 4 patients) versus progressors (n = 11 patients) in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup of a validation cohort (two-sided MWW, P = 0.10). h, MHC-II HLA gene set scores (ssGSEA) in responders (n = 6 patients) versus progressors (n = 11 patients) in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup of a validation cohort (two-sided MWW, P = 0.80). i, Selected Cancer Hallmark gene sets (GSEA) enriched in responders versus progressors in the overall (n = 47 responders and 56 progressors), post-ipilimumab-treatment (n = 11 responders and 16 progressors), and ipilimumab-naive (n = 31 responders and 34 progressors) subgroups of our discovery cohort. IFN-γ and IFN-α response pathways were enriched in responders in the overall (FDR, q < 0.001 and q = 0.02, respectively) and ipilimumab-treated (q < 0.001, both) subgroups but not in the ipilimumab-naive subgroups (q = 0.13 and q = 0.997, respectively) in the discovery cohort (empiric, P = 0.183 and P = 0.18, respectively for the difference in q values between the subgroups; Methods). j, Selected Cancer Hallmark gene sets (GSEA) enriched in responders versus progressors in the overall, post-ipilimumab-treatment and ipilimumab-naive subgroups in an independent validation cohort. IFN-γ and IFN-α response pathways were enriched in responders in the overall (FDR, q < 0.0001 and q = 0.0034, respectively) and ipilimumab-treated (q < 0.0001, both) subgroups but not in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup (q = 0.87 and q = 0.03 (enriched in progressors), respectively) in the discovery cohort. Pathways favoring enrichment in progressors (as opposed to responders) are visualized here with an FDR q value of 1. All Hallmark pathways and their GSEA enrichment scores are shown in Supplementary Table 5. Boxplots: box limits indicate the IQR (25th to 75th percentile), with a center line indicating the median. Whiskers show the value ranges up to 1.5 × IQR above the 75th or below the 25th percentile, with outliers beyond those ranges shown as individual points. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. NS, not significant.CC BY · PubMed Central

Fig. 4 Progression versus response by immune infiltrate and MHC-II HLA expression stratified by ipilimumab treatment. a, Proportion of responders versus progressors in subgroups with high and low MHC-II HLA score (ssGSEA; divided by the median). Overall, a high MHC-II HLA score was associated with higher response (MHC-II high: n = 29 responders and 20 progressors; MHC-II low: n = 18 responders and 36 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.01; OR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.3–6.5). b, As in a but in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup. Tumors with low MHC-II HLA score (ssGSEA) were associated with PD (MHC-II high: n = 9 responders and 5 progressors; MHC-II low: n = 2 responders and 11 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.02; OR = 9.9, 95% CI 1.5–63.7). c, As in a but in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup. There was no significant difference between tumors with high and low MHC-II HLA scores (ssGSEA; MHC-II high: n = 18 responders and 14 progressors; MHC-II low: n = 13 responders and 19 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.32; OR = 1.9, 95% CI 0.7–5.1). d, Proportion of responders versus progressors in subgroups with high and low immune infiltrate scores (divided by the median). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of responders versus progressors in tumors with high versus low immune infiltrate (infiltrate high: n = 27 responders and 24 progressors; infiltrate low: n = 20 responders and 32 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.17; OR = 1.8, 95% CI 0.8–3.9). e, As in d but in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup. Tumors with low immune infiltrate scores were strongly associated with PD (infiltrate high: n = 10 responders and 7 progressors; infiltrate low: n = 1 responder and 9 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.02; OR = 12.9, 95% CI 1.3–125.8). f, As in d but in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup. There was no statistically significant difference between tumors with high and low immune infiltrate scores (infiltrate high: n = 14 responders and 15 progressors; infiltrate low: n = 17 responders and 18 progressors; two-sided Fisher’s exact test, P = 1.0; OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.4–2.6). g, Schematic of the hypothesized effect of ipilimumab treatment on immune response as a predictor of subsequent response to anti-PD1 ICB. Tumors that were treated with ipilimumab but failed to have an immune response or infiltrate in the tumor microenvironment were strongly predicted to have intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB. However, having an immune response did not guarantee a subsequent response to anti-PD1 ICB. In ipilimumab-naive tumors, neither the presence nor the absence of immune infiltrate was a good predictor of anti-PD1 ICB response.CC BY · PubMed Central

Fig. 5 Integrative predictive modeling of intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB. a, CoMut plot showing the relationship between response and predictive features in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup. Each column represents a patient, and the top row indicates whether the patient had PD (intrinsic resistance) or non-PD (CR, PR, SD or MR) as the best response. Patients are sorted by MHC-II HLA score, which was the most predictive feature and was correlated with MHC-I and IFN response pathway scores. MHC-II HLA, LDH at treatment initiation and the presence of lymph node metastases (LN met) were features used for our logistic regression model, chosen using forward selection (Methods). b, A receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curve for our predictive model for ipilimumab-treated tumors (n = 34 patients) using MHC-II HLA, LDH and lymph node metastases as features. The AUC was 0.9, and the log-likelihood ratio was P = 0.0003. The fivefold cross-validation mean AUC was 0.83. c, CoMut plot showing the relationship between response and predictive features in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup. Each column represents a patient, and the top row indicates whether the patient had PD (intrinsic resistance) or non-PD as the best response. Patients are sorted by tumor heterogeneity (top), tumor ploidy (middle) and tumor purity (bottom), which were the three features chosen in our predictive model (Methods). Purity, ploidy and heterogeneity were independent predictors in the multivariate model (Supplementary Table 9). d, The ROC curve for our predictive model for ipilimumab-naive tumors (n = 84 tumors) using heterogeneity, purity and ploidy as features. The AUC was 0.77, and the log-likelihood ratio was P = 0.0003. The average tenfold cross-validation mean AUC was 0.73. e, Survival (PFS and OS as indicated) stratified by high versus low predictive model score (split by the median) in ipilimumab-treated tumors in our discovery cohort. Tumors with high scores had worse PFS and OS (two-sided KM log-rank test, P = 0.0001 and P = 0.001, respectively). f, Survival (PFS and OS as indicated) stratified by high versus low predictive model score (split by the median) in ipilimumab-naive tumors in our discovery cohort. Tumors with high scores had worse PFS and OS (two-sided KM log-rank test, P = 0.003 and P = 6.3 × 10−5, respectively).CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 1 Consort Diagram showing inclusion, exclusion, and quality control criteria for patients/tumors included in analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 2 Survival and genomic copy number characteristics of responders (n = 55 patients) (defined as CR or PR as best response) vs. progressors (n = 65 patients) (defined as PD as best response). (a) PFS Kaplan Meier survival curves; two-sided log-rank p = 2.1e-28 (b) OS Kaplan Meier survival curves; two-sided log-rank p = 5.1e-18 (c) Proportion of tumor genome with copy number alterations (two-sided MWW p = 0.09). Boxplots: Box limits indicate the interquartile range (25th-75th percentile), with a center line indicating the median. Whiskers show the value ranges up to 1.5xIQR above the 75th or below the 25th percentile, with outliers beyond those ranges shown as individual points. PD = progressive disease. CR = complete response. PR = partial response.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 3 Association of Genomic Alterations in Genes with Response vs. Progression. For each gene, the association of a genomic alteration with response was tested using a two-sided Fisher’s Exact test, and the odds ratio (OR) and p-value calculated. The adjusted OR is a conservative estimate generated by adding 1 to both mutant gene responders and progressors, thus moving the OR estimate closer to 1. The x- and y-axis are on log scales, but labeled in the original units. (a) Association of gene mutations with response (n = 55 patients) vs. progression (n = 65 patients). (b) Association of gene amplifications with response (n = 55 patients) vs. progression (n = 65 patients).CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 4 Amplification of Chromosome 6 Regions in TAP2, HLA-A/B/C amplified tumors. Patients with amplifications in TAP2 or HLA-A/B/C are shown, with inferred amplifications in the relevant section of Chromosome 6 shown. 6 patients had amplifications in TAP2, 6 patients had amplifications in HLA-A/B/C, and 4 patients had amplifications of a chromosomal region including all four genes.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 5 Hierarchical clustering of the correlation matrix between transcriptional signatures previously associated with immunotherapy response and hallmark gene-sets, genomic, clinical, and transcriptomic features associated with response in our cohort. The color indicates the Pearson correlation between features, from perfect negative correlation (Pearson r = -1, blue) to perfect positive correlation (Pearson r = 1, red). Most previously hypothesized signatures cluster within an immune-activity related group with immune-related gene-sets. Sample size for each correlation depends on the number of available data points: correlations involving exclusively genomic or clinical data had n = 144 tumor samples, while correlations involving transcriptomic features had n = 121 tumor samples with data available.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 6 Expression of Genomic Features in Responders vs. Progressors in ipilimumab-treated and -naive subsets. Two-sided Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests were used to compare responders to progressors (ipilimumab-treated: n = 16 responders/20 progressors; ipilimumab-naïve: n = 34 responders/37 progressors). All p-values are unadjusted. Log Nonsyn Mutload: Ipi-treated p = 0.15; Ipi-naïve p = 0.15. Log Clonal Mutload: Ipi-treated p = 0.17; Ipi-naïve p = 0.08. Heterogeneity: Ipi-treated p = 0.51; Ipi-naïve p = 0.057. Ploidy: Ipi-treated p = 0.45; Ipi-naïve p = 0.002. Boxplots: Box limits indicate the interquartile range (25th-75th percentile), with a center line indicating the median. Whiskers show the value ranges up to 1.5xIQR above the 75th or below the 25th percentile, with outliers beyond those ranges shown as individual points.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 7 Survival of patients stratified by progressive disease (PD) or non-PD (SD, MR, PR, or CR) best response (RECIST 1.1) to PD-1 ICB. (a) PFS (two-sided logrank p = 4.0e-38 (b) OS (two-sided logrank p = 1.2e-19).CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 8 Model selection criteria with increasing number of features by forward selection; cross-validation AUC distribution of final models. (a) Model AUC for the ipi-treated subgroup. Each point is labeled with the additional feature, and the final model includes MHC-II, Lymph node metastasis, and LDH below the median as features. (b) Model AUC for the ipi-naive subgroup. Each point is labeled with the additional feature, and the final model includes ploidy, heterogeneity, and purity as features. (c) Model AIC/BIC for the ipi-experienced subgroup. (d) Model AIC/BIC for the ipi-naïve subgroup. (e) Using 10-fold crossvalidation in the ipilimumab-naïve subset, mean crossvalidation AUC is 0.73, with a SD of 0.25. Each fold split the cohort into a training (n = 74 patients) and test set (n = 10 patients) ((f) In the ipi-experienced subset, mean crossvalidation AUC is 0.85, with a SD of 0.18. Each fold split the cohort into a training (n = 27 patients) and test set (n = 7 patients).CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 9 Subgroup Model ROC curves applied to other subgroups. (a) Ipilimumab-treated subgroup model applied to ipilimumab-naive (n = 74 patients) subgroup; (b) Ipilimumab-naive model applied to ipilimumab-treated (n = 45 patients) subgroup; (c) Ipi-naïve model predicting PD as best response to PD-1 ICB applied to pre-ipilimumab-treated (n = 15 patients) tumors. (top) Comut plot overlaying best response and the ipi-naïve model score. Each column is one of 15 ipilimumab-treated tumors biopsied prior to ipilimumab therapy, ordered by the predictive model score. The 5 highest scoring tumors were all PD. (bottom) Receiver-operator curve for our ipilimumab-naive predictive model applied to pre-ipilimumab tumors (n = 15), with an AUC of 0.71.CC BY · PubMed Central

Extended Data Fig. 10 Limited validation testing single feature models in validation cohort. (a) Relationship between response and MHC-II HLA score in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup of a validation cohort. Each column is a patient, and patients are sorted by MHC-II HLA score. (b) Validation of Predictive Model for ipilimumab-treated tumors. In a validation cohort (n = 23), a model using the only common available feature (MHC-II HLA score) had an AUC of 0.65 (log likelihood ratio p = 0.09, empiric p = 0.21, Methods). (c) Relationship between response and MHC-II HLA score in the ipilimumab-treated subgroup of a validation cohort. Each column is a patient, and patients are sorted by MHC-II HLA score. (d) Validation of Predictive Model for ipilimumab-naive Tumors. In a validation cohort (n = 20), a model using the only common available feature (heterogeneity) had an AUC of 0.73 (log likelihood ratio p = 0.17, empiric p = 0.066, Methods).CC BY · PubMed Central

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles
Subramanian, A., Tamayo, P., Mootha, V. K., Mukherjee, S., Ebert, B. L., Gillette, M. A., Paulovich, A., Pomeroy, S. L., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0506580102 · Cited by 53,625
STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner
Dobin, A., Davis, C. A., Schlesinger, F., Drenkow, J., Zaleski, C., Jha, S., Batut, P., Chaisson, M., & Gingeras, T. R. (2013) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 · Cited by 51,709
PD-1 and PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade to Treat Breast Cancer
Hartkopf, A. D., Taran, F., Wallwiener, M., Walter, C. B., Krämer, B., Grischke, E., & Brucker, S. Y. (2016) · Breast Care · doi:10.1159/000453569 · Cited by 30,989
RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome
Li, B., & Dewey, C. N. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-323 · Cited by 22,179
Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
Hodi, F. S., O'Day, S. J., McDermott, D. F., Weber, R. W., Sosman, J. A., Haanen, J. B., Gonzalez, R., Robert, C., Schadendorf, D., Hassel, J. C., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1003466 · Cited by 15,155
Self-citation
Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization
Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/44565 · Cited by 14,193
The Molecular Signatures Database Hallmark Gene Set Collection
Liberzon, A., Birger, C., Thorvaldsdóttir, H., Ghandi, M., Mesirov, J. P., & Tamayo, P. (2015) · Cell Systems · doi:10.1016/j.cels.2015.12.004 · Cited by 13,807
Robust enumeration of cell subsets from tissue expression profiles
Newman, A. M., Liu, C. L., Green, M. R., Gentles, A. J., Feng, W., Xu, Y., Hoang, C. D., Diehn, M., & Alizadeh, A. A. (2015) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3337 · Cited by 13,224
Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Reck, M., Rodríguez-Abreu, D., Robinson, A. G., Hui, R., Csőszi, T., Fülöp, A., Gottfried, M., Peled, N., Tafreshi, A., Cuffe, S., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1606774 · Cited by 10,089
Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer
Initiative, A. P. C. G., Alexandrov, L. B., ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium, ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium, PedBrain, I., Nik-Zainal, S., Wedge, D. C., Aparicio, S. A. J. R., Behjati, S., Biankin, A. V., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12477 · Cited by 9,660

Show all 80 references

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,003

Mutations in the IFNγ-JAK-STAT Pathway Causing Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma Increase Sensitivity to Oncolytic Virus Treatment
Nguyen, T.-T., Ramsay, L., Ahanfeshar-Adams, M., Lajoie, M., Schadendorf, D., Alain, T., & Watson, I. R. (2021) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-3365 · Cited by 87
Self-citation
Predictable Clinical Benefits without Evidence of Synergy in Trials of Combination Therapies with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors
Palmer, A. C., Izar, B., Hwangbo, H., & Sorger, P. K. (2022) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-2275 · Cited by 85
Self-citation
Cancer Neoantigens: Challenges and Future Directions for Prediction, Prioritization, and Validation
Borden, E. S., Buetow, K. H., Wilson, M. A., & Hastings, K. T. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.836821 · Cited by 86
Integrative Tumor and Immune Cell Multi-omic Analyses Predict Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Melanoma
Anagnostou, V., Bruhm, D. C., Niknafs, N., White, J. R., Shao, X. M., Sidhom, J.-W., Stein, J. E., Tsai, H., Wang, H., Belcaid, Z., et al. (2020) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2020.100139 · Cited by 87
Inhibition of UBA6 by inosine augments tumour immunogenicity and responses
(2022) · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33116-z · Cited by 82
Talimogene laherparepvec upregulates immune-cell populations in non-injected lesions: findings from a phase II, multicenter, open-label study in patients with stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma
Malvehy, J., Самойленко, И. В., Schadendorf, D., Gutzmer, R., Grob, J., Sacco, J. J., Gorski, K. S., Anderson, A., Pickett, C. A., Liu, K., et al. (2021) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-001621 · Cited by 82
Self-citation
Leveraging big data of immune checkpoint blockade response identifies novel potential targets
Barèche, Y., Kelly, D., Aghababazadeh, F. A., Nakano, M., Esfahani, P. N., Tkachuk, D., Mohammad, H., Samstein, R. M., Lee, C., Morris, L. G. T., et al. (2022) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.08.084 · Cited by 85
CCND1 Amplification Contributes to Immunosuppression and Is Associated With a Poor Prognosis to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors
Chen, Y., Huang, Y., Gao, X., Li, Y., Lin, J., Chen, L., Chang, L., Chen, G., Guan, Y., Pan, L. K., et al. (2020) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01620 · Cited by 84
Disrupting tumour vasculature and recruitment of aPDL1-loaded platelets control tumour metastasis
Li, H., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Ci, T., Chen, G., Wen, D., Li, R., Wang, J., Meng, H., Bell, R. B., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22674-3 · Cited by 79
Acquired Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockades: The Underlying Mechanisms and Potential Strategies
Zhou, B., Gao, Y., Zhang, P., & Chu, Q. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.693609 · Cited by 81
The Predictive Value of Tumor Mutation Burden on Clinical Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ning, B., Liu, Y., Wang, M., Li, Y., Xu, T., & Wei, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.748674 · Cited by 83
Combining Cancer Vaccines with Immunotherapy: Establishing a New Immunological Approach
Kim, C.-G., Sang, Y. B., Lee, J. H., & Chon, H. J. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22158035 · Cited by 78
NKG2A Is a Therapeutic Vulnerability in Immunotherapy Resistant MHC-I Heterogeneous Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Taylor, B. C., Sun, X., Ericsson, P. I. G., Sanchez, V. M., Sanders, M. E., Wescott, E. C., Opalenik, S. R., Hanna, A., Chou, S.-T., Kaer, L. V., et al. (2023) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-23-0519 · Cited by 77
Computational immunogenomic approaches to predict response to cancer immunotherapies
Addala, V., Newell, F., Pearson, J. V., Redwood, A., Robinson, B. W. S., Creaney, J., & Waddell, N. (2023) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-023-00830-6 · Cited by 79
Malignant Melanoma: An Overview, New Perspectives, and Vitamin D Signaling
Slominski, R. M., Kim, T., Janjetović, Z., Brożyna, A. A., Podgórska, E., Dixon, K. M., Mason, R. S., Tuckey, R. C., Sharma, R., Crossman, D. K., et al. (2024) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers16122262 · Cited by 79
Comprehensive analysis of tumor necrosis factor receptor TNFRSF9 (4-1BB) DNA methylation with regard to molecular and clinicopathological features, immune infiltrates, and response prediction to immunotherapy in melanoma
Fröhlich, A., Loick, S., Bawden, E., Fietz, S., Dietrich, J., Diekmann, E., Saavedra, G., Fröhlich, H., Niebel, D., Sirokay, J. D., et al. (2020) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102647 · Cited by 76
Inactivation of Fbxw7 Impairs dsRNA Sensing and Confers Resistance to PD-1 Blockade
Gstalder, C., Liu, D., Miao, D., Lutterbach, B. A., DeVine, A. L., Lin, C., Shettigar, M., Pancholi, P., Buchbinder, E. I., Carter, S. L., et al. (2020) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-19-1416 · Cited by 75
Self-citation
Prediction of biomarkers and therapeutic combinations for anti-PD-1 immunotherapy using the global gene network association
Wu, C.-C., Wang, Y., Livingston, J. A., Zhang, J., & Futreal, P. A. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27651-4 · Cited by 80
Single-cell N6-methyladenosine regulator patterns guide intercellular communication of tumor microenvironment that contribute to colorectal cancer progression and immunotherapy
Gao, Y., Wang, H., Chen, S., An, R., Chu, Y., Li, G., Wang, Y., Xie, X., & Zhang, J. (2022) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-022-03395-7 · Cited by 71
Clonally expanded EOMES+ Tr1-like cells in primary and metastatic tumors are associated with disease progression
Bonnal, R. J. P., Rossetti, G., Lugli, E., Simone, M. C. D., Gruarin, P., Brummelman, J., Drufuca, L., Passaro, M., Bason, R., Gervasoni, F., et al. (2021) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-021-00930-4 · Cited by 73
CDK4/6 inhibition triggers ICAM1-driven immune response and sensitizes LKB1 mutant lung cancer to immunotherapy
Bai, X., Guo, Z.-Q., Zhang, Y.-P., Fan, Z., Liu, L., Liu, L., Long, L.-L., Ma, S.-C., Wang, J., Fang, Y., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36892-4 · Cited by 72
Identification of CircRNA signature associated with tumor immune infiltration to predict therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy
Dong, Y., Gao, Q., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Du, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, G., Li, S., Wang, G., Chen, X., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38232-y · Cited by 71
CD8+T cell responsiveness to anti-PD-1 is epigenetically regulated by Suv39h1 in melanomas
Niborski, L. L., Gueguen, P., Ye, M., Thiolat, A., Ramos, R. N., Caudana, P., Denizeau, J., Colombeau, L., Rodriguez, R., Goudot, C., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31504-z · Cited by 70
Efficacy of Nivolumab in Pediatric Cancers with High Mutation Burden and Mismatch Repair Deficiency
Das, A., Tabori, U. Y., Nahum, L. C. S., Collins, N. B., Deyell, R. J., Dvir, R., Faure‐Conter, C., Hassall, T., Minturn, J. E., Edwards, M., et al. (2023) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-0411 · Cited by 71
Recent advancements in the B7/CD28 immune checkpoint families: new biology and clinical therapeutic strategies
Pulanco, M. C., Madsen, A. T., Tanwar, A., Corrigan, D. T., & Zang, X. (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41423-023-01019-8 · Cited by 69
CD4+ T cells produce IFN-I to license cDC1s for induction of cytotoxic T-cell activity in human tumors
Lei, X., de Groot, D., Welters, M. J. P., de Wit, T., Schrama, E., van Eenennaam, H., Santegoets, S. J. A. M., Oosenbrug, T., van der Veen, A. G., Vos, J. L., et al. (2024) · Cellular and Molecular Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41423-024-01133-1 · Cited by 71
MHC Class I Deficiency in Solid Tumors and Therapeutic Strategies to Overcome It
Shklovskaya, E., & Rizos, H. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22136741 · Cited by 71
Interleukin 17 signaling supports clinical benefit of dual CTLA-4 and PD-1 checkpoint inhibition in melanoma
Váraljai, R., Zimmer, L., Al-Matary, Y. S., Kaptein, P., Albrecht, L. J., Shannan, B., Brase, J. C., Gusenleitner, D., Amaral, T. M. S., Wyss, N., et al. (2023) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-023-00610-2 · Cited by 70
Self-citation
Identification of NOTCH4 mutation as a response biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy
Long, J., Wang, D., Yang, X., Wang, A., Lin, Y. S., Zheng, M., Zhang, H., Sang, X., Wang, H., Hu, K., et al. (2021) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-021-02031-3 · Cited by 65
Necroptosis‐related lncRNA to establish novel prognostic signature and predict the immunotherapy response in breast cancer
Chen, F., Yang, J., Fang, M., Wu, Y., Su, D., & Sheng, Y. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis · doi:10.1002/jcla.24302 · Cited by 65
Oncogenic CDK13 mutations impede nuclear RNA surveillance
Insco, M. L., Abraham, B. J., Dubbury, S. J., Kaltheuner, I. H., Dust, S., Wu, C., Chen, K. Y., Liu, D., Bellaousov, S., Cox, A. M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abn7625 · Cited by 66
Self-citation
PD-1 defines a distinct, functional, tissue-adapted state in Vδ1+ T cells with implications for cancer immunotherapy
Davies, D., Kamdar, S., Woolf, R., Zlatareva, I., Iannitto, M. L., Morton, C., Haque, Y., Martin, H., Biswas, D., Ndagire, S., et al. (2024) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-023-00690-0 · Cited by 67
ZNF683 marks a CD8+ T cell population associated with anti-tumor immunity following anti-PD-1 therapy for Richter syndrome
Parry, E. M., Lemvigh, C. K., Deng, S., Dangle, N. J., Ruthen, N. G., Knisbacher, B. A., Broséus, J., Hergalant, S., Guièze, R., Li, S., et al. (2023) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2023.08.013 · Cited by 69
Sarcoma microenvironment cell states and ecosystems are associated with prognosis and predict response to immunotherapy
Subramanian, A., Nemat‐Gorgani, N., Ellis-Caleo, T. J., van IJzendoorn, D. G. P., Sears, T. J., Somani, A., Luca, B. A., Zhou, M. Y., Bradić, M., Torres, I. A., et al. (2024) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-024-00743-y · Cited by 66
Pre-Treatment Mutational and Transcriptomic Landscape of Responding Metastatic Melanoma Patients to Anti-PD1 Immunotherapy
Amato, C. M., Hintzsche, J. D., Wells, K. R., Applegate, A. J., Gorden, N. T., Vorwald, V. M., Tobin, R. P., Nassar, K. W., Shellman, Y. G., Kim, J., et al. (2020) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers12071943 · Cited by 63
Targeting the innate immunoreceptor RIG-I overcomes melanoma-intrinsic resistance to T cell immunotherapy
Such, L., Zhao, F., Liu, D. H., Thier, B., Le‐Trilling, V. T. K., Sucker, A., Coch, C., Pieper, N., Howe, S., Bhat, H., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci131572 · Cited by 61
Self-citation
DENR controls JAK2 translation to induce PD-L1 expression for tumor immune evasion
Chen, B., Hu, J., Hu, X., Chen, H., Bao, R., Zhou, Y., Ye, Y., Zhan, M., Cai, W., Li, H., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29754-y · Cited by 61
Biomarker Discovery in Patients with Immunotherapy-Treated Melanoma with Imaging Mass Cytometry
Martínez-Morilla, S., Villarroel‐Espíndola, F., Wong, P. F., Toki, M. I., Aung, T. N., Pelekanou, V., Bourke-Martin, B., Schalper, K. A., Kluger, H. M., & Rimm, D. L. (2021) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-3340 · Cited by 61
CoMut: visualizing integrated molecular information with comutation plots
Crowdis, J. P., He, M. X., Reardon, B. M., & Allen, E. M. V. (2020) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa554 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
Lymph node and tumor-associated PD-L1+ macrophages antagonize dendritic cell vaccines by suppressing CD8+ T cells
Sprooten, J., Vanmeerbeek, I., Datsi, A., Govaerts, J., Naulaerts, S., Laureano, R. S., Borràs, D., Calvet, A., Malviya, V., Kuballa, M., et al. (2024) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101377 · Cited by 61
Dual role of interferon-gamma in the response of melanoma patients to immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors
Wawrzyniak, P., & Hartman, M. L. (2025) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12943-025-02294-x · Cited by 62
Enhancing KDM5A and TLR activity improves the response to immune checkpoint blockade
Wang, L., Gao, Y., Zhang, G., Li, D., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Hermida, L. C., He, L., Wang, Z., Si, J., et al. (2020) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aax2282 · Cited by 60
Ubiquitin ligase STUB1 destabilizes IFNγ-receptor complex to suppress tumor IFNγ signaling
Apriamashvili, G., Vredevoogd, D. W., Krijgsman, O., Bleijerveld, O. B., Ligtenberg, M. A., de Bruijn, B., Boshuizen, J., Traets, J. J. H., Altimari, D. M. D., Vliet, A. V., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29442-x · Cited by 59
Transcriptomic datasets of cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review
Kovacs, S., & Győrffy, B. (2022) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-022-03409-4 · Cited by 58
Pan-cancer analysis reveals tumor-associated macrophage communication in the tumor microenvironment
Wang, L., He, T., Liu, J., Tai, J., Wang, B., Chen, Z., & Quan, Z. (2021) · Experimental Hematology and Oncology · doi:10.1186/s40164-021-00226-1 · Cited by 57
An activation to memory differentiation trajectory of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes informs metastatic melanoma outcomes
Jaiswal, A., Verma, A., Dannenfelser, R., Melssen, M. M., Tirosh, I., Izar, B., Kim, T., Nirschl, C. J., Devi, K. S. P., Olson, W. C., et al. (2022) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.04.005 · Cited by 61
Self-citation
Therapeutic Implications of Detecting MAPK-Activating Alterations in Cutaneous and Unknown Primary Melanomas
Shoushtari, A. N., Chatila, W. K., Arora, A., Sánchez-Vega, F., Kantheti, H. S., Zamalloa, J. A. R., Krieger, P., Callahan, M. K., Warner, A. B., Postow, M. A., et al. (2021) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4189 · Cited by 56
Widespread hypertranscription in aggressive human cancers
Zatzman, M., Fuligni, F., Ripsman, R., Suwal, T., Comitani, F., Edward, L.-M., Denroche, R. E., Jang, G. H., Notta, F., Gallinger, S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn0238 · Cited by 59
Multi-omics analysis uncovers tumor ecosystem dynamics during neoadjuvant toripalimab plus nab-paclitaxel and S-1 for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center, open-label, single-arm phase 2 trial
Zhang, G., Yuan, J., Pan, C., Xu, Q., Cui, X., Zhang, J., Liu, M., Song, Z., Wu, L., Wu, D., et al. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104515 · Cited by 58
Deconvolving Clinically Relevant Cellular Immune Cross-talk from Bulk Gene Expression Using CODEFACS and LIRICS Stratifies Patients with Melanoma to Anti–PD-1 Therapy
Wang, K., Patkar, S., Lee, J. S., Gertz, E. M., Robinson, W., Schischlik, F., Crawford, D. R., Schäffer, A. A., & Ruppin, E. (2022) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-0887 · Cited by 57
A mutation-based gene set predicts survival benefit after immunotherapy across multiple cancers and reveals the immune response landscape
Long, J., Wang, D., Wang, A., Chen, P., Lin, Y. S., Bian, J., Yang, X., Zheng, M., Zhang, H., Zheng, Y., et al. (2022) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-022-01024-y · Cited by 55
A novel cuproptosis-related lncRNA nomogram to improve the prognosis prediction of gastric cancer
Feng, A., He, L., Chen, T., & Xu, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.957966 · Cited by 55
Vitamin D supplementation increases objective response rate and prolongs progression‐free time in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing anti–PD‐1 therapy
Galus, Ł., Michalak, M., Lorenz, M., Stoińska‐Swiniarek, R., Tusień-Małecka, D., Galus, A., Kolenda, T., Leporowska, E., & Mackiewicz, J. (2023) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.34718 · Cited by 55
Breaking NGF–TrkA immunosuppression in melanoma sensitizes immunotherapy for durable memory T cell protection
Yin, T., Wang, G., Wang, L., Mudgal, P., Wang, E., Pan, C. C., Alexander, P. B., Wu, H., Cao, C., Liang, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-023-01723-7 · Cited by 57
Lymph node macrophages drive immune tolerance and resistance to cancer therapy by induction of the immune-regulatory cytokine IL-33
Lamorte, S., Quevedo, R., Jin, R., Neufeld, L. A., Liu, Z. Q., Ciudad, M. T., Lukhele, S., Bruce, J. K., Mishra, S. V., Zhang, X., et al. (2025) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2025.02.017 · Cited by 55
Cancer immunology data engine reveals secreted AOAH as a potential immunotherapy
Gong, L., Luo, J., Yang, E., Ru, B., Qi, Z., Yang, Y., Rani, A., Purohit, A., Zhang, Y., Guan, G., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.07.004 · Cited by 56
Prediction of Immunotherapy Response in Melanoma through Combined Modeling of Neoantigen Burden and Immune-Related Resistance Mechanisms
Abbott, C. W., Boyle, S. M., Pyke, R. M., McDaniel, L., Levy, É., Navarro, F. C. P., Mellacheruvu, D., Zhang, S. V., Tan, M., Santiago, R., et al. (2021) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4314 · Cited by 56
Development of an Immune-Related Risk Signature for Predicting Prognosis in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Fu, D., Zhang, B., Yang, L., Huang, S., & Wang, X. (2020) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00978 · Cited by 53
Targeting PRMT3 impairs methylation and oligomerization of HSP60 to boost anti-tumor immunity by activating cGAS/STING signaling
Shi, Y., Wu, Z., Liu, S., Zuo, D., Niu, Y., Qiu, Y., Qiao, L., He, W. A., Qiu, J., Yuan, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52170-3 · Cited by 55
Bone metastases diminish extraosseous response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy through osteopontin-producing osteoclasts
Cheng, J., Jin, Z., Su, C., Jiang, T., Zheng, X., Guo, J., Li, X., Chu, H., Jia, J., Zhou, Q., et al. (2025) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2025.03.036 · Cited by 55
Conserved Interferon-γ Signaling Drives Clinical Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy in Melanoma
Grasso, C. S., Tsoi, J., Onyshchenko, M. I., Abril-Rodríguez, G., Ross‐Macdonald, P., Wind‐Rotolo, M., Champhekar, A. S., Medina, E., Torrejon, D. Y., Shin, D. S., et al. (2020) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2020.11.015 · Cited by 55
Histone Acetylation Regulator-Mediated Acetylation Patterns Define Tumor Malignant Pathways and Tumor Microenvironment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Xu, Y., Liao, W., Luo, Q., Yang, D., & Pan, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.761046 · Cited by 52
Inhibition of the CtBP complex and FBXO11 enhances MHC class II expression and anti-cancer immune responses
Chan, K. L., Gomez, J., Cardinez, C., Kumari, N., Sparbier, C. E., Lam, E. Y. N., Yeung, M. M., Garciaz, S., Kuzich, J. A., Ong, D. M., et al. (2022) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.007 · Cited by 52
Enhancer decommissioning by MLL4 ablation elicits dsRNA-interferon signaling and GSDMD-mediated pyroptosis to potentiate anti-tumor immunity
Ning, H., HUANG, S. H., Yang, L., Zhi, R., Yan, H., Jin, J., Hu, Z., Guo, K., Liu, J., Yang, J., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34253-1 · Cited by 53
Translating the evolving molecular landscape of tumors to biomarkers of response for cancer immunotherapy
Anagnostou, V., Landon, B. V., Medina, J. E., Forde, P. M., & Velculescu, V. E. (2022) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abo3958 · Cited by 52
VISTA promotes the metabolism and differentiation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells by STAT3 and polyamine-dependent mechanisms
Zhang, K., Zakeri, A., Alban, T. J., Dong, J., Ta, H. M., Zalavadia, A. H., Branicky, A., Zhao, H., Jurić, I., Husic, H., et al. (2024) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113661 · Cited by 52
Navigating the immune landscape with plasma cells: A pan‐cancer signature for precision immunotherapy
Ye, B., Jiang, A., Feng, L., Wang, C., Liang, X., & Zhang, P. (2024) · BioFactors · doi:10.1002/biof.2142 · Cited by 54
The landscape of objective response rate of anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy across 31 types of cancer: a system review and novel biomarker investigating
Mao, Y., Xie, H., Lv, M., Yang, Q., Shuang, Z., Gao, F., Li, S., Zhu, L., & Wang, W. (2023) · Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy · doi:10.1007/s00262-023-03441-3 · Cited by 55
Acral melanoma: new insights into the immune and genomic landscape
Carvalho, L. A. D. C., Aguiar, F. C., Smalley, K. S. M., & Possik, P. A. (2023) · Neoplasia · doi:10.1016/j.neo.2023.100947 · Cited by 53
Precision Medicine and Melanoma: Multi-Omics Approaches to Monitoring the Immunotherapy Response
Valenti, F., Falcone, I., Ungania, S., Desiderio, F., Giacomini, P., Bazzichetto, C., Conciatori, F., Gallo, E., Cognetti, F., Ciliberto, G., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22083837 · Cited by 52
Molecular correlates of response to eribulin and pembrolizumab in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer
Keenan, T. E., Guerriero, J. L., Barroso‐Sousa, R., Li, T., O’Meara, T. A., Giobbie‐Hurder, A., Tayob, N., Hu, J., Severgnini, M., Agudo, J., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25769-z · Cited by 49
Self-citation
DHODH inhibition enhances the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade by increasing cancer cell antigen presentation
Mullen, N. J., Shukla, S. K., Thakur, R. K., Kollala, S. S., Wang, D., Chaika, N. V., Santana, J. F., Miklavcic, W. R., LaBreck, D. A., Mallareddy, J. R., et al. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.87292 · Cited by 50
Correlation of tumor PD-L1 expression in different tissue types and outcome of PD-1-based immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma – analysis of the DeCOG prospective multicenter cohort study ADOREG/TRIM
Placke, J., Kimmig, M., Griewank, K., Herbst, R. A., Terheyden, P. A. M., Utikal, J. S., Pföhler, C., Ulrich, J., Kreuter, A., Mohr, P., et al. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104774 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
Pan-cancer evaluation of regulated cell death to predict overall survival and immune checkpoint inhibitor response
Zhang, W., Zhu, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Liu, H., Adegboro, A. A., Dang, R., Dai, L., Wanggou, S., & Li, X. (2024) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-024-00570-5 · Cited by 49
Tumor-associated macrophage clusters linked to immunotherapy in a pan-cancer census
Wei, C., Ma, Y., Wang, M., Wang, S., Yu, W., Dong, S., Deng, W., Bie, L., Zhang, C., Shen, W., et al. (2024) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-024-00660-4 · Cited by 55
GM-CSF mediates immune evasion via upregulation of PD-L1 expression in extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma
Rong, Q., Wang, F., Guo, Z., Hu, Y., An, S., Luo, M., Zhang, H., Wu, S., Huang, H., & Fu, L. (2021) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12943-021-01374-y · Cited by 49
Immune Determinants of the Association between Tumor Mutational Burden and Immunotherapy Response across Cancer Types
Sinha, N., Sinha, S., Valero, C., Schäffer, A. A., Aldape, K., Litchfield, K., Chan, T. A., Morris, L. G. T., & Ruppin, E. (2022) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-21-2542 · Cited by 51
Tumor-intrinsic SIRPA promotes sensitivity to checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy in melanoma
Zhou, Z., Chen, M.-J. M., Luo, Y., Mojumdar, K., Peng, X., Chen, H., Kumar, S. V., Akbani, R., Lu, Y., & Liang, H. (2022) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2022.10.012 · Cited by 49
Association of PTPRT mutations with immune checkpoint inhibitors response and outcome in melanoma and non‐small cell lung cancer
Zhang, W., Shi, F., Kong, Y., Li, Y., Sheng, C., Wang, S., & Wang, Q. (2021) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.4472 · Cited by 49
The Efficacy of Tumor Mutation Burden as a Biomarker of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
Moeckel, C. M., Bakhl, K., Georgakopoulos‐Soares, I., & Zaravinos, A. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24076710 · Cited by 52
Molecular profiling of long‐term responders to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer
Frigola, J., Navarro, A., Carbonell, C., Callejo, A., Iranzo, P., Cedrés, S., Martínez‐Martí, A., Pardo, N., Gonzalez, N. S., Martinez, D., et al. (2020) · Molecular Oncology · doi:10.1002/1878-0261.12891 · Cited by 47
Neuronal CaMKK2 promotes immunosuppression and checkpoint blockade resistance in glioblastoma
Tomaszewski, W. H., Polania, J. W., Chakraborty, M. A., Perera, J., Ratiu, J. J., Hoyt-Miggelbrink, A. M., McDonnell, D. P., Khasraw, M., Ashley, D. M., Fecci, P. E., et al. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34175-y · Cited by 48
Zinc-copper bimetallic nanoplatforms trigger photothermal-amplified cuproptosis and cGAS-STING activation for enhancing triple-negative breast cancer immunotherapy
Zhou, B., Chen, M., Hao, Z., Li, L., Zhang, Y., Fang, B., Shao, M., Ren, G., Wang, X., Liu, H., et al. (2025) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-025-03186-4 · Cited by 52
Pathway signatures derived from on-treatment tumor specimens predict response to anti-PD1 blockade in metastatic melanoma
Du, K., Wei, S., Wei, Z., Frederick, D. T., Miao, B., Moll, T. O. C., Tian, T., Sugarman, E. T., Gabrilovich, D. I., Sullivan, R. J., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26299-4 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
Profiling of immune features to predict immunotherapy efficacy
Ye, Y., Zhang, Y., Yang, N., Gao, Q., Ding, X., Kuang, X., Bao, R., Zhang, Z., Sun, C., Zhou, B., et al. (2021) · The Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100194 · Cited by 46
Ipilimumab alone or in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced melanoma who have progressed or relapsed on PD-1 blockade: clinical outcomes and translational biomarker analyses
Friedman, C. F., Spencer, C. N., Cabanski, C. R., Panageas, K. S., Wells, D. K., Ribas, A., Tawbi, H. A., Tsai, K. K., Postow, M. A., Shoushtari, A. N., et al. (2022) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2021-003853 · Cited by 47
Resistance to immune checkpoint blockade: Mechanisms, counter-acting approaches, and future directions
Haddad, A. F., Young, J. S., Gill, S. A., & Aghi, M. K. (2022) · Seminars in Cancer Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.02.019 · Cited by 47
Integrated genomic analyses of acral and mucosal melanomas nominate novel driver genes
Wang, M., Banik, I., Shain, A. H., Yeh, I., & Bastian, B. C. (2022) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-022-01068-0 · Cited by 45
Phase Ib study of pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab emtansine for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer
Waks, A. G., Keenan, T. E., Li, T., Tayob, N., Wulf, G. M., Richardson, E. T., Attaya, V., Anderson, L., Mittendorf, E. A., Overmoyer, B. A., et al. (2022) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2022-005119 · Cited by 45
Tumor antigens preferentially derive from unmutated genomic sequences in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer
Apavaloaei, A., Zhao, Q., Hesnard, L., Cahuzac, M., Durette, C., Larouche, J., Hardy, M., Vincent, K., Brochu, S., Laverdure, J., et al. (2025) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-025-00979-2 · Cited by 47
Prognostic and predictive value of PD-L2 DNA methylation and mRNA expression in melanoma
Hoffmann, F., Zarbl, R., Niebel, D., Sirokay, J. D., Fröhlich, A., Posch, C., Holderried, T. A. W., Brossart, P., Saavedra, G., Kuster, P., et al. (2020) · Clinical Epigenetics · doi:10.1186/s13148-020-00883-9 · Cited by 45
Activity of ipilimumab plus nivolumab in avelumab-refractory Merkel cell carcinoma
Glutsch, V., Kneitz, H., Gesierich, A., Goebeler, M., Haferkamp, S., Becker, J. C., Ugurel, S., & Schilling, B. (2021) · Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy · doi:10.1007/s00262-020-02832-0 · Cited by 46
Self-citation
Immunogenomic determinants of tumor microenvironment correlate with superior survival in high-risk neuroblastoma
Bao, R., Spranger, S., Hernandez, K. M., Zha, Y., Pytel, P., Luke, J. J., Gajewski, T. F., Volchenboum, S. L., Cohn, S. L., & Desai, A. V. (2021) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2021-002417 · Cited by 45
Nivolumab in combination with cabozantinib for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase II and biomarker study
Barroso‐Sousa, R., Keenan, T. E., Li, T., Tayob, N., Trippa, L., Pastorello, R., Richardson, E. T., Dillon, D. A. R., Amoozgar, Z., Overmoyer, B. A., et al. (2021) · npj Breast Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41523-021-00287-9 · Cited by 46
Pyroptosis-Related Signature Predicts Prognosis and Immunotherapy Efficacy in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer
Zhang, Q., Tan, Y., Zhang, J., Shi, Y. X., Qi, J., Zou, D., & Ci, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.782982 · Cited by 45
Neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC: Phase 2 trial interim results (NEOTIDE/CTONG2104)
Zhang, C., Sun, Y.-X., Yi, D., Jiang, B., Yan, L., Liu, Z.-D., Peng, L., Zhang, W., Sun, H., Chen, Z., et al. (2024) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101615 · Cited by 45
Integrated molecular drivers coordinate biological and clinical states in melanoma
Conway, J. R., Dietlein, F., Taylor-Weiner, A. N., AlDubayan, S. H., Vokes, N. I., Keenan, T. E., Reardon, B. M., He, M. X., Margolis, C. A., Weirather, J. L., et al. (2020) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-020-00739-1 · Cited by 44
Self-citation
Additive Role of Immune System Infiltration and Angiogenesis in Uveal Melanoma Progression
García‐Mulero, S., Alonso, M. H., del Carpio, L. P., Pamplona, R. S., & Piulats, J. M. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22052669 · Cited by 44
A single-cell pan-cancer analysis to show the variability of tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells in immune checkpoint blockade
Li, W., Pan, L., Hong, W., Ginhoux, F., Zhang, X., Xiao, C., & Li, X. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50478-8 · Cited by 46
Long-Term Outcomes in BRAF-Mutated Melanoma Treated with Combined Targeted Therapy or Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Are We Approaching a True Cure?
Schummer, P., Schilling, B., & Gesierich, A. (2020) · American Journal of Clinical Dermatology · doi:10.1007/s40257-020-00509-z · Cited by 44
Self-citation

Authors: Liu, D., Schilling, B., Liu, D., Sucker, A., Livingstone, E., Jerby-Arnon, L., Zimmer, L., Gutzmer, R., Satzger, I., Loquai, C., Grabbe, S., Vokes, N., Margolis, C. A., Conway, J., He, M. X., Elmarakeby, H., Dietlein, F., Miao, D., Tracy, A., Gogas, H., Goldinger, S. M., Utikal, J., Blank, C. U., Rauschenberg, R., von Bubnoff, D., Krackhardt, A., Weide, B., Haferkamp, S., Kiecker, F., Izar, B., Garraway, L., Regev, A., Flaherty, K., Paschen, A., Van Allen, E. M., & Schadendorf, D.
Affiliations: Broad Institute (US)
German Cancer Research Center (DE)
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
University Hospital Zurich (CH)
The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (DE)
University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author: Schadendorf, Dirk
ORCID: Liu, David
Schilling, Bastian
Liu, Derek
Sucker, Antje
Livingstone, Elisabeth
Zimmer, Lisa
Gutzmer, Ralf
Satzger, Imke
Loquai, Carmen
Grabbe, Stephan
Vokes, Natalie
Margolis, Claire A.
Conway, Jake
He, Meng Xiao
Elmarakeby, Haitham
Dietlein, Felix
Miao, Diana
Tracy, Adam
Gogas, Helen
Goldinger, Simone M.
Utikal, Jochen
Blank, Christian U.
Rauschenberg, Ricarda
Krackhardt, Angela
Weide, Benjamin
Haferkamp, Sebastian
Garraway, Levi
Regev, Aviv
Flaherty, Keith
Paschen, Annette
Van Allen, Eliezer M.
Schadendorf, Dirk
Venue: Nature Medicine
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published: 2019-12
Volume: 25
Issue: 12
Pages: 1916-1927
ISSN: 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
1546-170X
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-019-0654-5
PMC: PMC6898788
OpenAlex: W2991341799
Cited by: 1,039
References: 80
Citations by year: 2026: 118 · 2025: 156 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 210 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 64
FWCI: 37.04
Type: journal article
Language: en
Update notices: correction (2020-06-19)
Open access: hybrid
doi.org
Licence: cc-by
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (vor, 1 d)
Locations: Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Nature
Funders: National Science Foundation (1144152)
Conquer Cancer Foundation (T32 GM008313)
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHA422/17-1, SCHA 422/17, PA 2376/1‐, HO 6389/2-1, KFO337, 2376/1-1, 6389/2-1, PA 2376/1‐1)
Universität des Saarlandes
Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen Heidelberg
National Institutes of Health (DGE1144152)
National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG002295)
National Cancer Institute (R01CA227388, K08CA222663, K08CA234458, U01CA233100)
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008313)
Topics: Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords: metastatic melanoma, predictive biomarkers, tumor mutational burden, MHC class I antigen presentation, MHC class II antigen presentation, immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance, transcriptomic features, clinical outcome prediction
MeSH terms: Exome Sequencing, Nivolumab, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Mutation, Neoplasm Metastasis, Antigen Presentation, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Transcriptome, CTLA-4 Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Integrative molecular and clinical modeling of clinical outcomes to PD1 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Figures

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks