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 301–400 of 1,003

CELF2 is a candidate prognostic and immunotherapy biomarker in triple‐negative breast cancer and lung squamous cell carcinoma: A pan‐cancer analysis
Wang, L., Liu, Z., Liu, L., Guo, C., Jiao, D., Li, L., Zhao, J., Han, X., & Sun, Y. (2021) · Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1111/jcmm.16791 · Cited by 23
Biological knowledge graph-guided investigation of immune therapy response in cancer with graph neural network
Zhao, L., Qi, X., Chen, Y., Qiao, Y., Bu, D., Wu, Y., Luo, Y., Wang, S., Zhang, R., & Zhao, Y. C. (2023) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbad023 · Cited by 24
Intracellular Adhesion Molecule‐1 Improves Responsiveness to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor by Activating CD8+ T Cells
Lee, S., Kim, Y., Jeon, B., Kim, G., Sohn, J., Yoon, Y., Kim, S., Kim, Y., Kim, H. M., Cha, H., et al. (2023) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202204378 · Cited by 23
Identifying biomarkers associated with immunotherapy response in melanoma by multi-omics analysis
He, Y., & Wang, X. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107591 · Cited by 23
Tumor cell-intrinsic SETD2 inactivation sensitizes cancer cells to immune checkpoint blockade through the NR2F1-STAT1 pathway
Zheng, X., Luo, Y., Xiong, Y., Liu, X., Zeng, C., Lu, X., Wang, X., Cheng, Y., Wang, S., Lan, H., et al. (2023) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2023-007678 · Cited by 23
Cell-cell communication network-based interpretable machine learning predicts cancer patient response to immune checkpoint inhibitors
Lee, J., Kim, D., Kong, J., Ha, D., Kim, I., Park, M., Lee, K., Im, S., & Kim, S. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj0785 · Cited by 23
Multi-omics analysis unveils the predictive value of IGF2BP3/SPHK1 signaling in cancer stem cells for prognosis and immunotherapeutic response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer
Wang, Y., Song, W., Feng, C., Wu, S., Qin, Z., Liu, T., Ye, Y., Huang, R., Xie, Y., Tang, Z., et al. (2024) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-024-05685-8 · Cited by 22
Identification of a novel subtype of SPP1 + macrophages expressing SIRPα: implications for tumor immune evasion and treatment response prediction
Chen, K., Li, Y., Ni, J., Yang, X., Zhou, Y., Pang, Y., Ye, R., Chen, H., Yu, S., Wang, P., et al. (2024) · Experimental Hematology and Oncology · doi:10.1186/s40164-024-00587-3 · Cited by 22
Deciphering the tumor microenvironment cell–infiltrating landscape reveals microenvironment subtypes and therapeutic potentials for nonsquamous NSCLC
Chen, H., Zhang, T., Zhang, Y., Wu, H., Fang, Z., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Jia, S., Ji, X., et al. (2022) · JCI Insight · doi:10.1172/jci.insight.152815 · Cited by 22
Systematic evaluation of the predictive gene expression signatures of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic melanoma
Coleman, S. S., Xie, M., Tarhini, A. A., & Tan, A. C. (2022) · Molecular Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1002/mc.23442 · Cited by 22
CD74 is associated with inflamed tumor immune microenvironment and predicts responsiveness to PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody in patients with solid tumors
Wang, J., Li, X., Xiao, G., Desai, J., Frentzas, S., Wang, Z. M., Xia, Y., & Li, B. (2024) · Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy · doi:10.1007/s00262-023-03604-2 · Cited by 23
Multiple mechanisms and applications of tertiary lymphoid structures and immune checkpoint blockade
Li, Z., Liu, S., Liu, D., Yang, K., Xiong, J., & Fang, Z. (2025) · Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1186/s13046-025-03318-6 · Cited by 21
Self-citation
Tissue-resident exhausted and memory CD8+ T cells have distinct ontogeny, function and roles in disease
Park, S. L., Painter, M. M., Manne, S., Alcalde, V., McLaughlin, M., Sullivan, M. A., Mathew, D., Torres, L., Huang, Y., Reeg, D. B., et al. (2025) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-025-02352-y · Cited by 23
Artificial intelligence–enabled multi-omics biomarkers for immune checkpoint blockade: mechanisms, predictive modeling, and clinical translation
Wang, X., Xiong, D., Cui, S., Duan, B., Ding, G., Huang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1732079 · Cited by 22
Integration of the Tumor Mutational Burden and Tumor Heterogeneity Identify an Immunological Subtype of Melanoma With Favorable Survival
Gao, Y., Yang, C., He, N., Zhao, G., Wang, J., & Yang, Y. (2020) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.571545 · Cited by 21
Intratumoral CD73: An immune checkpoint shaping an inhibitory tumor microenvironment and implicating poor prognosis in Chinese melanoma cohorts
Gao, Z., Wang, L., Song, Z., Ren, M., Yang, Y., Li, J., Shen, K., Li, Y., Ding, Y., Yang, Y., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.954039 · Cited by 21
Role of cuproptosis-related gene in lung adenocarcinoma
Liu, Y., Lin, W. C., Yang, Y., Shao, J., Zhao, H., Wang, G., & Shen, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1080985 · Cited by 21
Addressing Tumor Heterogeneity by Sensitizing Resistant Cancer Cells to T cell–Secreted Cytokines
Ito, Y., Pan, D., Zhang, W., Zhang, X., Juan, T. Y., Pyrdol, J. W., Kyrysyuk, O., Doench, J. G., Liu, X. S., & Wucherpfennig, K. W. (2023) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-22-1125 · Cited by 23
CXCR2 expression during melanoma tumorigenesis controls transcriptional programs that facilitate tumor growth
Yang, J., Bergdorf, K. N., Yan, C., Luo, W., Chen, S. C., Ayers, G. D., Liu, Q., Liu, X., Boothby, M. R., Weiss, V. L., et al. (2023) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12943-023-01789-9 · Cited by 21
The impact and future of artificial intelligence in medical genetics and molecular medicine: an ongoing revolution
Özçelik, F., Dündar, M. S., Yildirim, A. B., HENEHAN, G. T. M., Vicente, O., Sánchez-Alcázar, J. A., Gökçe, N., Yildirim, D. T., Bingol, N. N., Plaseska‐Karanfilska, D., et al. (2024) · Functional & Integrative Genomics · doi:10.1007/s10142-024-01417-9 · Cited by 21
USH2A Mutation is Associated With Tumor Mutation Burden and Antitumor Immunity in Patients With Colon Adenocarcinoma
Sun, Y., Li, L., Yao, W., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Ma, B., & Xue, D. (2021) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.762160 · Cited by 21
Propafenone facilitates mitochondrial-associated ferroptosis and synergizes with immunotherapy in melanoma
Zhou, Q., Dian, Y., He, Y., Yao, L., Su, H., Meng, Y., Sun, Y., Li, D., Xiong, Y., Zeng, F., et al. (2024) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2024-009805 · Cited by 21
Diversity of Dominant Peripheral T Cell Receptor Clone and Soluble Immune Checkpoint Proteins Associated With Clinical Outcomes Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment in Advanced Cancers
Li, Y., Wang, J., Wu, L., Li, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, G., Xu, S., Sun, S., & Jiao, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.649343 · Cited by 20
Targeting GPCRs and Their Signaling as a Therapeutic Option in Melanoma
Raymond, J. H., Aktary, Z., Larue, L., & Delmas, V. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14030706 · Cited by 20
Insights and Strategies of Melanoma Immunotherapy: Predictive Biomarkers of Response and Resistance and Strategies to Improve Response Rates
Seyhan, A. A., & Carini, C. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24010041 · Cited by 22
Glioblastoma and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Glance at Available Treatment Options and Future Directions
Rodriguez, S. M. B., Tătăranu, L. G., Kamel, A., Turliuc, Ș., Rizea, R. E., & Dricu, A. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms251910765 · Cited by 20
Inherited mitochondrial genetics as a predictor of immune checkpoint inhibition efficacy in melanoma
Monson, K. R., Ferguson, R., Handzlik, J. E., Morales, L. J., Xiong, J., Chat, V., Dagayev, S., Khodadadi‐Jamayran, A., Simpson, D., Kazlow, E., et al. (2025) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03699-3 · Cited by 19
Self-citation
Comprehensive tumor-immune profiling reveals mediators of paradoxical immune sensitivity in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma
Salgia, N., Khan, A., Aubrecht, W. M., Twoey, G., Chow, J., Attwood, K. M., Yu, H., Chiello, J. L., Hansen, N. F., Wasik, B. J., et al. (2025) · Cancer Cell · doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2025.07.010 · Cited by 19
Cuproptosis-immunity crosstalk informs strategy to overcome immunotherapy resistance
Lei, G., Lu, Z., Xu, Z., Braun, C., Huo, D., Gao, J., Tan, L., Hong, T., Wu, S., Sun, M., et al. (2026) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2026.05.036 · Cited by 22
NeoScore Integrates Characteristics of the Neoantigen:MHC Class I Interaction and Expression to Accurately Prioritize Immunogenic Neoantigens
Borden, E. S., Ghafoor, S., Buetow, K. H., LaFleur, B., Wilson, M. A., & Hastings, K. T. (2022) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.2100700 · Cited by 19
Integrative multi-omics analysis unveils stemness-associated molecular subtypes in prostate cancer and pan-cancer: prognostic and therapeutic significance
Zheng, K. C., Hai, Y., Xi, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., Chen, W., Hu, X., Zou, X., & Hao, J. (2023) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-023-04683-6 · Cited by 19
Modulator of TMB-associated immune infiltration (MOTIF) predicts immunotherapy response and guides combination therapy
Qian, Z.-Y., Pan, Y., Li, X., Chen, Y., Wu, H., Liu, Z., Košař, M., Bártek, J., Wang, Z., & Xu, R. (2024) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2024.01.025 · Cited by 19
HIF2A mediates lineage transition to aggressive phenotype of cancer-associated fibroblasts in lung cancer brain metastasis
You, M., Fu, M., Shen, Z., Feng, Y., Zhang, L., Zhu, X., Zhuang, Z., Mao, Y. Q., & Hua, W. (2024) · OncoImmunology · doi:10.1080/2162402x.2024.2356942 · Cited by 20
PD-1 Blockade in Chinese versus Western Patients with Melanoma
Shoushtari, A. N., Bao, R., & Luke, J. J. (2020) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-1558 · Cited by 19
Predicting immunotherapy response through genomics
Cormedi, M. C. V., Allen, E. M. V., & Colli, L. M. (2020) · Current Opinion in Genetics & Development · doi:10.1016/j.gde.2020.11.004 · Cited by 19
The Efficacy of Anti-PD-L1 Treatment in Melanoma Is Associated with the Expression of the ECM Molecule EMILIN2
Fejza, A., Polano, M., Camicia, L., Poletto, E., Carobolante, G., Toffoli, G., Mongiat, M., & Andreuzzi, E. (2021) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms22147511 · Cited by 19
Excessive immunosuppression by regulatory T cells antagonizes T cell response to schistosome infection in PD-1-deficient mice
Lu, L., Li, T., Feng, X., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Chao, T., Gu, Y., Huang, R., Zhang, F., He, L. D., et al. (2022) · PLoS Pathogens · doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1010596 · Cited by 19
A TCF4/BRD4-dependent regulatory network confers cross-resistance to targeted and immune checkpoint therapy in melanomaPreprint
Poźniak, J., Pedri, D., Landeloos, E., Herck, Y. V., Antoranz, A., Karras, P., Nowosad, A., Makhzami, S., Bervoets, G., Dewaele, M., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.08.11.502598 · Cited by 21
Automated Quantitative CD8+ Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes and Tumor Mutation Burden as Independent Biomarkers in Melanoma Patients Receiving Front-Line Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy
Fortman, D. D., Karunamurthy, A. D., Hartman, D. J., Wang, H., Seigh, L., Abukhiran, I. M., Najjar, Y. G., Pantanowitz, L., Zarour, H. M., Kirkwood, J. M., et al. (2024) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyae054 · Cited by 18
A cellular senescence-related classifier based on a tumorigenesis- and immune infiltration-guided strategy can predict prognosis, immunotherapy response, and candidate drugs in hepatocellular carcinoma
Luo, Y., Liu, H., Fu, H. Y., Ding, G., & Teng, F. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.974377 · Cited by 18
The therapeutic potential of targeting minimal residual disease in melanoma
Patel, R. P., Somasundram, P. M., Smith, L. K., Sheppard, K. E., & McArthur, G. A. (2023) · Clinical and Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/ctm2.1197 · Cited by 18
Impact of Cuproptosis-related markers on clinical status, tumor immune microenvironment and immunotherapy in colorectal cancer: A multi-omic analysis
Shao, Y., Fan, X., Yang, X. F., Li, S., Huang, L., Zhou, X., Zhang, S., Zheng, M., & Sun, J. P. (2023) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2023.06.011 · Cited by 18
The inter-link of ageing, cancer and immunity: findings from real-world retrospective study
Fu, X., Qin, P., Li, F., Zhu, H., You, H., Zhang, Y., Xu, B., Li, T., Zhang, F., Han, L., et al. (2023) · Immunity & Ageing · doi:10.1186/s12979-023-00399-9 · Cited by 19
A Large-Scale Meta-Analysis Reveals Positive Feedback between Macrophages and T Cells That Sensitizes Tumors to Immunotherapy
Yang, J., Liu, Q., & Shyr, Y. (2023) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-23-2006 · Cited by 18
A muti-modal feature fusion method based on deep learning for predicting immunotherapy response
Li, X., Feng, X., Zhou, J., Luo, Y., Chen, X., Zhao, J., Chen, H., Xiong, G., & Luo, G. (2024) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2024.111816 · Cited by 18
Exploration of the Prognostic and Immunotherapeutic Value of B and T Lymphocyte Attenuator in Skin Cutaneous Melanoma
Dong, X., Song, J., Chen, B., Qi, Y., Jiang, W., Li, H., Zheng, D., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., & Liu, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.592811 · Cited by 18
The role of interferons in melanoma resistance to immune checkpoint blockade: mechanisms of escape and therapeutic implications
Hargadon, K. M. (2021) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.20608 · Cited by 18
HSPG2 Mutation Association with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Outcome in Melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Zhang, W., Lin, Z., Shi, F., Wang, Q., Kong, Y., Ren, Y., Lyu, J., Sheng, C., Li, Y., Qin, H., et al. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14143495 · Cited by 18
Interferon Epsilon Loss Is Elusive 9p21 Link to Immune-Cold Tumors, Resistant to Immune Checkpoint Therapy, and Endogenous CXCL9/10 Induction
Zhao, X., Liu, B., William, W. N., Tsanov, K. M., Ho, Y.-J., Barriga, F. M., Lim, R. J., Trifas, M., Khandekar, A., Du, Y., et al. (2024) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2024.12.020 · Cited by 19
Current Trends of Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Cutaneous Melanoma: A Review
Naik, P. P. (2021) · Dermatology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s13555-021-00583-z · Cited by 17
Development and validation of a necroptosis-related gene prognostic score to predict prognosis and efficiency of immunotherapy in gastric cancer
Xia, Y., Zhang, R., Wang, M., Li, J., Dong, J., He, K., Guo, T., Ju, X., Ru, J., Zhang, S., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.977338 · Cited by 17
ACAP1 Deficiency Predicts Inferior Immunotherapy Response in Solid Tumors
Yi, Q., Pu, Y., Chao, F., Bian, P., & Lv, L. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14235951 · Cited by 17
A novel disulfidptosis and glycolysis related risk score signature for prediction of prognosis and ICI therapeutic responsiveness in colorectal cancer
Li, J., Yang, C., & Zheng, Y. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-40381-5 · Cited by 17
Chromatin accessibility dynamics in colorectal cancer liver metastasis: Uncovering the liver tropism at single cell resolution
Li, S., Yang, M. J., Teng, S., Lin, K., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Guo, W., & Wang, D. (2023) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106896 · Cited by 20
Identification of specific prognostic markers for lung squamous cell carcinoma based on tumor progression, immune infiltration, and stem index
Wu, R., Ma, R., Duan, X., Zhang, J., Li, K., Yu, L., Zhang, M., Liu, P., & Wang, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1236444 · Cited by 17
Deciphering immune predictors of immunotherapy response: A multiomics approach at the pan-cancer level
Li, X., Pan, L., Li, W., Liu, B., Xiao, C., Chew, V., Zhang, X., Wang, L., Ginhoux, F., Loscalzo, J., et al. (2025) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.101992 · Cited by 18
KMT2C is a Potential Biomarker of Anti-PD-1 Treatment Response in Metastatic Melanoma
Xie, K., Peng, Y., Zhong, W., & Liu, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Bioscience-Landmark · doi:10.31083/j.fbl2703103 · Cited by 17
Prediction of immunotherapy responsiveness in melanoma through single-cell sequencing-based characterization of the tumor immune microenvironment
Dong, Y., Chen, Z., Yang, F., Wei, J., Huang, J., & Long, X. (2024) · Translational Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2024.101910 · Cited by 16
Dissecting the immune landscape in pediatric high-grade glioma reveals cell state changes under therapeutic pressure
LaBelle, J. J., Haase, R. D., Beck, A., Haase, J., Jiang, L., de Biagi, C. A. O., Neyazi, S., Englinger, B., Liu, I., Trissal, M. C., et al. (2025) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102095 · Cited by 16
Induced B cell receptor diversity predicts PD-1 blockade immunotherapy response
Che, Y., Lee, J., Abou-Taleb, F., Rieger, K. E., Satpathy, A. T., Chang, A. L. S., & Chang, H. Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2501269122 · Cited by 16
Malevolent alliance of MYBL2 hi cancer stem cell and SPP1+ macrophage confers resistance to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in bladder cancer
Chen, H., Jin, Z., Peng, Y., Li, Y., Li, Z., Zhang, X., Xie, Y., Dong, J., Ma, L., & Ji, Z. (2025) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2024-011319 · Cited by 17
Identification and characterization of circular RNAs as novel putative biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1 monotherapy response in metastatic melanoma patients – Knowledge from two independent international studies
Zhou, J., Liang, R., Wang, H.-T., Jin, S., Hu, W., Frey, B., Fietkau, R., Hecht, M., Ma, H., & Gaipl, U. S. (2023) · Neoplasia · doi:10.1016/j.neo.2023.100877 · Cited by 18
Fluorocarbon Modified Chitosan to Enable Transdermal Immunotherapy for Melanoma Treatment
Zhuang, Q., Chao, T., Wu, Y., Wei, T., Ren, J., Cao, Z., Peng, R., & Liu, Z. (2023) · Small · doi:10.1002/smll.202303634 · Cited by 16
Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma: A Narrative Review
Rizzetto, G., SIMONI, E. D., Molinelli, E., Offidani, A., & Simonetti, O. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms241512383 · Cited by 17
A pan-cancer clinical platform to predict immunotherapy outcomes and prioritize immuno-oncology combinations in early-phase trials
Hernando‐Calvo, A., Vila-Casadesús, M., Barèche, Y., González‐Medina, A., Aghababazadeh, F. A., Giacco, D. L., Martín, Á., Saavedra, O., Braña, I., Vieito, M., et al. (2023) · Med · doi:10.1016/j.medj.2023.07.006 · Cited by 17
Promising and Minimally Invasive Biomarkers: Targeting Melanoma
Spiliopoulou, P., Lopes, C. D. H., & Spreafico, A. (2023) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells13010019 · Cited by 16
Conserved methylation signatures associate with the tumor immune microenvironment and immunotherapy response
Qin, Q., Zhou, Y., Guo, J., Chen, Q., Tang, W., Li, Y., You, J., & Li, Q. (2024) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-024-01318-3 · Cited by 16
Proteomic, single-cell and bulk transcriptomic analysis of plasma and tumor tissues unveil core proteins in response to anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in triple negative breast cancer
Li, Y., Liang, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Zhu, Y.-N., Liu, J., Ren, H., Jiang, W., Wang, J., Zhang, Z., et al. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108537 · Cited by 18
Pan‐cancer analyses reveal that increased Hedgehog activity correlates with tumor immunosuppression and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors
Jiang, J., Ding, Y., Chen, Y., Lü, J., Chen, Y., Wu, G., Xu, N., Wang, H., & Teng, L. (2021) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.4456 · Cited by 16
Di‐genic inheritance of germline POLE and PMS2 pathogenic variants causes a unique condition associated with pediatric cancer predisposition
Michaeli, O., Ladany, H., Erez, A., Shachar, S. B., Izraeli, S., Lidzbarsky, G. A., Basel‐Salmon, L., Biskup, S., Maruvka, Y. E., Toledano, H., et al. (2021) · Clinical Genetics · doi:10.1111/cge.14106 · Cited by 16
Predicting Durable Responses to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Using a Multi-Feature Model
Wang, L., Zhang, H., Pan, C., Yi, J., Cui, X., Li, N., Wang, J., Gao, Z., Wu, D., Chen, J., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.829634 · Cited by 16
Quantification of Neoantigen-Mediated Immunoediting in Cancer Evolution
Wu, T., Wang, G., Wang, X., Wang, S., Zhao, X., Wu, C., Ning, W., Tao, Z., Chen, F., & Liu, X.-S. (2022) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-21-3717 · Cited by 16
Is tumor mutational burden predictive of response to immunotherapy?Preprint
Gurjao, C., Tsukrov, D. I., Imakaev, M., Luquette, L. J., & Mirny, L. A. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.09.03.260265 · Cited by 17
Pseudohypoxic stabilization of HIF1α via cyclophilin D suppression promotes melanoma metastasis
Park, H., Hu, S., Kim, S. Y., Yoon, S., Yoon, N. G., Lee, J. H., Choi, W., Kong, S., Kim, J. H., Nam, D., et al. (2025) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-025-02314-8 · Cited by 16
Reversal of tumour immune evasion via enhanced MHC-Class-I antigen presentation by a dual-functional RNA regulated system
Meng, C., Zhang, H., Yi, X., Kong, G., Zhang, X., Wang, B., Xu, Y., Qi, H., Wu, Q., Zhang, K. K., et al. (2025) · Molecular Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12943-025-02480-x · Cited by 15
Pan-cancer analysis reveals interleukin-17 family members as biomarkers in the prediction for immune checkpoint inhibitor curative effect
Han, X., Ye, J., Huang, R., Li, Y., Liu, J., Meng, T., & Song, D. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.900273 · Cited by 15
Downregulation of KEAP1 in melanoma promotes resistance to immune checkpoint blockade
Fox, D. B., Ebright, R. Y., Hong, X., Russell, H. C., Guo, H., LaSalle, T. J., Wittner, B. S., Poux, N., Vuille, J. A., Toner, M., et al. (2023) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-023-00362-3 · Cited by 15
TimiGP: Inferring cell-cell interactions and prognostic associations in the tumor immune microenvironment through gene pairs
Li, C., Zhang, B., Schaafsma, E., Reuben, A., Wang, L., Turk, M. J., Zhang, J., & Cheng, C. (2023) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101121 · Cited by 15
Copper metabolism-related risk score identifies hepatocellular carcinoma subtypes and SLC27A5 as a potential regulator of cuproptosis
Li, X., Wang, J., Guo, Z., Ma, Y., Xu, D., Fan, D., Dai, P., Chen, Y., Liu, Q., Jiao, J., et al. (2023) · Aging · doi:10.18632/aging.205334 · Cited by 15
IRF1-mediated immune cell infiltration is associated with metastasis in colon adenocarcinoma
Shao, Y., Ni, J.-J., Wei, S., Weng, X., Shen, M., Jia, Y., & Meng, L.-N. (2020) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000022170 · Cited by 15
Stratification From Heterogeneity of the Cell-Death Signal Enables Prognosis Prediction and Immune Microenvironment Characterization in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Zhang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.855404 · Cited by 15
Identification and validation of a poor clinical outcome subtype of primary prostate cancer with Midkine abundance
Zhou, Q., Yang, C., Mou, Z., Wu, S., Dai, X., Chen, X., Ou, Y., Zhang, L., Sha, J., & Jiang, H. (2022) · Cancer Science · doi:10.1111/cas.15546 · Cited by 15
HLA Class II Loss and JAK1/2 Deficiency Coevolve in Melanoma Leading to CD4 T-cell and IFNγ Cross-Resistance
Stupia, S., Heeke, C., Brüggemann, A., Zaremba, A., Thier, B., Kretz, J., Sucker, A., Philip, M., Zelinskyy, G., Ferrone, S., et al. (2023) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-0099 · Cited by 16
Self-citation
Engineering NK and T cells with metabolite-sensing receptors to target solid tumors
Kim, Y., Tsai, M. K., Sun, C., Laveroni, O., Akana, R. V., Frombach, K. R., & Jerby‐Arnon, L. (2026) · Nature Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41590-026-02473-y · Cited by 14
Self-citation
Innate immune receptor signaling induces transient melanoma dedifferentiation while preserving immunogenicity
Thier, B., Zhao, F., Stupia, S., Brüggemann, A., Koch, J., Schulze, N., Horn, S., Coch, C., Hartmann, G., Sucker, A., et al. (2022) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2021-003863 · Cited by 14
Self-citation
Functional biomaterials for biomimetic 3D in vitro tumor microenvironment modeling
Ahmed, T. (2023) · In vitro models · doi:10.1007/s44164-023-00043-2 · Cited by 14
Acod1 expression in cancer cells promotes immune evasion through the generation of inhibitory peptides
Schofield, J. H., Longo, J., Sheldon, R. D., Albano, E., Ellis, A. E., Hawk, M. A., Murphy, S. P., Duong, L., Rahmy, S., Lü, X., et al. (2024) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2024.113984 · Cited by 15
IFN-α/β/IFN-γ/IL-15 pathways identify GBP1-expressing tumors with an immune-responsive phenotype
Wang, L., Wei, Y., Jin, Z., Liu, F., Li, X., Zhang, X., Bai, X., Jia, Q., Zhu, B., & Chu, Q. (2024) · Clinical and Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10238-024-01328-w · Cited by 14
Deciphering glutamine metabolism patterns for malignancy and tumor microenvironment in clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Wu, G., Li, T., Chen, Y., Ye, S., Zhou, S., Tian, X., Anwaier, A., Zhu, S., Xu, W., Hao, X., et al. (2024) · Clinical and Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10238-024-01390-4 · Cited by 15
A colorimetric biosensor for the analysis of circulating PD-L1 with application to diagnose breast cancer
Liu, Y., Zeng, T., Wu, S., Sun, Y., Liang, Q., Liang, Y., Huang, X., Li, W., Shi, H., Li, G., et al. (2025) · Sensors and Actuators B Chemical · doi:10.1016/j.snb.2025.137334 · Cited by 14
Immunological and clinical immunotherapy implications of NLRP3 mutations in melanoma
Wang, Q., Lyu, J., Zhang, W., Shi, F., Ren, Y., Mao, Q., Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Wang, S. (2021) · Aging · doi:10.18632/aging.203678 · Cited by 14
HLA Class I Downregulation in Progressing Metastases of Melanoma Patients Treated With Ipilimumab
Ladányi, A., Hegyi, B., Balatoni, T., Liszkay, G., Rohregger, R., Waldnig, C., Dudás, J., & Ferrone, S. (2022) · Pathology & Oncology Research · doi:10.3389/pore.2022.1610297 · Cited by 14
Construction of m6A-based prognosis signature and prediction for immune and anti-angiogenic response
Wang, X.-X., Wu, L., Dou, Q.-Y., Ai, L., Lu, Y., Deng, S., Liu, Q., Ji, H., & Zhang, H. (2022) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2022.1034928 · Cited by 14
Effector T cells under hypoxia have an altered transcriptome similar to tumor-stressed T cells found in non-responsive melanoma patients
Nagy, M. Z., Plaza-Rojas, L., Boucher, J. C., Kostenko, E., Austin, A. L., Tarhini, A. A., Chen, Z., Du, D., Ojwang’, A. M. E., Davis, J. S., et al. (2025) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2024-010153 · Cited by 13
Clinical and Molecular Correlates of NLRC5 Expression in Patients With Melanoma
Lv, L., Wei, Q., Wang, Z., Zhao, Y., Chen, N., & Yi, Q. (2021) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2021.690186 · Cited by 13
Membrane-localized neoantigens predict the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy
Goldberger, Z., Hauert, S., Chang, K., Kurtanich, T. R., Alpar, A. T., Repond, G., Wang, Y., Gomes, S., Krishnakumar, R., Siddarth, P., et al. (2023) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101145 · Cited by 14
Protein Arginine Methyltransferases Refine the Classification of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma with Distinct Prognosis and Tumor Microenvironment Characteristics
Ye, S., Tian, X., Anwaier, A., Wei, S., Liu, W., Su, J., Zhu, S., Dai, B., Gu, J., Qu, Y., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijbs.80323 · Cited by 13
Identifying specific TLS-associated genes as potential biomarkers for predicting prognosis and evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy in soft tissue sarcoma
Wang, X.-X., Liu, Y., Lu, Y., Wu, L., Ren, J.-Y., Ji, H., Wang, X., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1372692 · Cited by 13
Genomic heterogeneity and ploidy identify patients with intrinsic resistance to PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma
Tarantino, G., Ricker, C. A., Wang, A., Ge, W. H., Aprati, T. J., Huang, A. Y., Madha, S., Chen, J., Shi, Y., Glettig, M., et al. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adp4670 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
Dual role of Cathepsin S in cutaneous melanoma: insights from mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analysis
Zhou, L., Zhou, Q., Guo, Q., Lai, P., Rui, C., Li, W., Chen, X., Zhuo, Y., Zhong, X., & Lin, S. (2025) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-13481-w · Cited by 13

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