Skip to main content
NCBI home page
eClinicalMedicine logoLink to eClinicalMedicine
. 2021 Sep 16;41:101134. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101134

The association between CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the clinical outcome of cancer immunotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Feng Li a,#, Caichen Li a,#, Xiuyu Cai b,#, Zhanhong Xie c,#, Liquan Zhou a,d, Bo Cheng a, Ran Zhong a, Shan Xiong a, Jianfu Li a, Zhuxing Chen a, Ziwen Yu a, Jianxing He a,⁎, Wenhua Liang a,⁎
PMCID: PMC8452798  PMID: 34585125

Abstract

Background

The responses of cancer patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) vary in success. CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) play a key role in killing tumor cells. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic role of CD8+ TILs in cancer patients treated with ICIs.

Methods

We systematically searched all publications from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library until 12 Jul 2021 without any restriction of language or article types. Studies assessing high versus low CD8+ TILs in predicting efficacy and survival of various cancer patients were included. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). The study protocol is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021233654).

Findings

Findings: A total of 33 studies consisting of 2559 cancer patients were included. The result showed that high CD8+ TILs were significantly associated with better OS (HR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.41–0.67; p < 0.001), PFS (HR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.40–0.67; p < 0.001) and ORR (OR, 4.08; 95% confidence interval: 2.73–6.10; p  < 0.001) in patients treated with ICIs. Subgroup analyses suggested that patients with high CD8+ TILs had a better clinical benefit, regardless of different treatments (ICI mono therapy, or combination therapy), cancer types (NSCLC, melanoma and others), and CD8+ T cells locations (intra-tumor, stroma, and invasive margin). The higher baseline circulating CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood did not contribute to the improved OS (HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.67–1.29; p = 0.67) and PFS (HR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.60–1.32; p = 0.56) compared with the low baseline.

Interpretation

Interpretation: Our results suggested that high intra-tumoral, stromal, or invasive marginal, but not circulating CD8+ T cells, can predict treatment outcomes in patients with ICIs therapy across different cancers, in either single-agent ICIs or combination with other therapies.

Funding

Funding: China National Science Foundation (Grant No. 82,022,048, 81,871,893), Key Project of Guangzhou Scientific Research Project (Grant No. 201,804,020,030), High-level university construction project of Guangzhou medical university (Grant No. 20,182,737, 201,721,007, 201,715,907, 2,017,160,107); National key R & D Program (Grant No. 2017YFC0907903 & 2017YFC0112704) and the Guangdong high level hospital construction "reaching peak" plan.

Keywords: CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, Immune checkpoint inhibitors, Cancer, Survival, Biomarker

Research in context.

Evidence before this study

Effective immunotherapy requires thorough knowledge of the tumor microenvironment. It had been shown that the presence of high CD8+ TILs contributed to longer survival in cancer patients received ICIs treatment. However, some articles had conflicting and inconclusive evidence. In addition, the metabolic regulation, the functional states, the subtype, and the spatial distribution of CD8+ T cells play different roles in predicting prognosis in patients received ICIs. We aimed to clarify the prognostic value of CD8+ TILs on OS, PFS, and ORR in various cancer patients treated with ICIs.

Added value of this study

A total of 33 studies consisting of 2559 cancer patients were included. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis which showed that high CD8+ T cells in tissue, but not in peripheral blood could predict better prognosis in patient with ICIs therapy, across different cancers.

Implication of all the available evidence

This study suggested that the density of CD8+ TILs should be taken into account before cancer patients received ICIs treatment. Pre-assessment of the density and location of CD8+ T cells may promote individualized immunotherapy outcomes. Patients with high CD8+ TILs had better clinical outcomes.

Alt-text: Unlabelled box

1. Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatments. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors can block PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, which is known to drive T cells dysfunction, and release the brake on T cell anti-tumor immune responses [1,2]. However, the responses of cancer patients to ICIs vary in success. Unmet needs exist in predicting such responses with accurate biomarkers to maximize the efficacy and minimize the toxicity of ICIs.

The tools of evaluation on ICIs response have evolved from imaging to molecular or genetic alteration. Biomarkers deriving from tumor immune microenvironment and tumor cell-intrinsic features, such as PD-L1 expression status, tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and mismatch-repair (MMR) deficiency, were reported to be correlated with the effect of ICIs treatment [3]. ICIs could overcome the dysfunction and exhaustion of T cells resulting from transcriptional and translational regulation of the various cell populations in the tumor microenvironment (TME) [4]. CD8+ TILs are critical determinant of response to ICIs treatment since their direct role in tumor cell destruction [5,6]. Dann et.al demonstrated that the presence of high CD8+ TILs were a potential biomarker to predict a better PFS in NSCLC patients receiving Nivolumab [7]. Leisha et al. showed that a higher ORR and a longer PFS and OS were observed in triple-negative breast cancer patients with higher CD8+ TILs before atezolizumab therapy [8]. However, Sylvia et al. proposed that there was no statistically significant association of CD8+ TILs density with clinical outcome [9]. In addition, the metabolic regulation, the functional states [4], the subtype, and spatial distribution of CD8+ T cells play different roles in tumor immunity [10], [11], [12], [13]. The effect of CD8+ T cells to immunotherapy is still in debate.

We herein performed a comprehensive pooled analysis to clarify the prognostic value of CD8+ TILs on OS, PFS, and ORR in various cancer patients treated with ICIs. Subgroup analyses by different treatments (ICIs mono therapy and combination therapy), cancer types (NSCLC, melanoma and others), and CD8+ T cells locations (intra-tumor, stroma, and invasive margin) were conducted. We also explored the role of circulating CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood.

2. Methods

2.1. Search strategy and selection criteria

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines [14]. The protocol was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42021233654). The study was exempted from review by the institutional review board for the innocuousness of this study.

We systematically searched all publications from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library until 12 Jul 2021 without any restriction of language or article types. Following keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were contained: immune checkpoint inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, programmed death-ligand 1, programmed death receptor 1, CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and carcinoma (eTable 1 in the appendix). Furthermore, we manually searched recommended references from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and conference proceedings.

Studies assessing high versus low CD8+ TILs in predicting efficacy and survival of various cancer patients treated with ICIs were considered. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) Patients: advanced or metastatic cancer patients diagnosed by cytology or pathology. 2) Study type: observational (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional with binary outcomes) or interventional studies (randomized controlled trials). 3) Intervention: ICIs (anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 inhibitors) with or without other therapies. 4) Biomarker: CD8+ T cells derived from tumor tissues or peripheral blood. 5) Outcome: available data that measured OS, PFS, or ORR. The ORR was defined as the sum of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), assessed by RECIST or irRC. The exclusion criteria were as follows: studies with insufficient data, reviews, notes, letters, editorials, comments, case reports, expert opinions and animal studies.

The following data were extracted: baseline characteristic of each study (author, year, study type, country), patients characteristics (median age, gender, number, cancer type and treatments), information of CD8+ T cells (detection method, sample type, location, and cutoff value), outcomes (ORR, PFS, OS) and their statistics values (HR, OR, 95% CI).

All included articles were independently selected by two authors (FL and LQZ). The process of data extraction and quality assessment were performed by SX and JFL independently. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion by a panel of adjudicators (FL, XYC, ZHX, LQZ, CCL, BC, SX, JFL, RZ, ZXC, and ZWY).

2.2. Data analysis

The software Stata version 16 MP (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used to perform the meta-analysis. When uni-variate and multivariate analysis were performed for HRs and its 95% CIs, the latter analysis was chosen. If there were Kaplan–Meier curves without specific HR value in the study, HRs were calculated following the method previously described [15,16].

The Cochrane's Q test (chi-squared test; Chi2) and I2 value were used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity among the included studies. The pooled estimates of HRs and 95% CIs were calculated using the random-effects inverse-variance-weighted model, while OR and 95%CI were calculated using the random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model. The subgroup analyses of OS, PFS, and ORR were performed in terms of treatment types, cancer types, and CD8+ T cells location. The cumulative meta-analysis was conducted based on the year of publication. Sensitivity analysis was also performed to explore the possible source of heterogeneity. Funnel plot analysis and Egger's test were performed to assess publication bias. It would be defined as statistically significant heterogeneity when chi-squared p-value < 0.1 or an I2statistic > 50%. For all pooled analyses, a p-value less than 0.05 suggested a statistical significance.

2.3. Role of the funding source

The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

3. Result

3.1. Characteristics and quality of the included studies

A total of 5123 articles were obtained through the initial search strategy. After screening abstract and reviewing full texts, 33 articles [[7], [8], [9],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]] published from 2014 to 2021 were considered as eligible in final analyses (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart and quality assessment of selecting eligible studies. (A): flowchart of selecting eligible studies. (B): Quality assessment of included studies by NOS.

The baseline characteristics of all included articles were listed in Table 1. A total of 2559 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and other solid tumors, who received ICIs mono therapy or ICIs combination therapy, were enrolled. CD8+ T cells were derived from tumor tissue (28/33 studies) or peripheral blood (5/33 studies). CD8+ T cells in tissue come from primary tumor rather than the metastasis. This distinction is crucial, as the strength of the immune system decreases in the metastatic setting. The baseline CD8+ TILs in tissue before ICIs treatments were examined in 3 compartments: intra-tumor, stroma and invasive margin. The cutoff value for defining high and low CD8+ T cells was according to the each included study independently.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of included studies.

Author Year Study Type Number Country Age, y Disease Treatment Cutoff Value Detection CD8+ T cells Location Sample Source Outcome
Adil 2016 Retrospective 40 USA NA Melanoma Pembrolizumab/ Nivolumab 1500 cells/mm2 Flow Cytometric Invasive Margin and Overall Tumor Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Alexander 2021 Retrospective 17 USA 62(34–77) Neuroendocrine Neoplasms Pembrolizumab Median Flow Cytometry Peripheral Blood Blood PFS
Alexandra 2021 Retrospective 98 Canada 57(25–86) Solid Tumors Anti-PD-1/ Anti-PD-L1/CTLA-4 Median NA NA Tissue TTP, OS
Anna 2020 Retrospective 139 Netherlands NA NSCLC Nivolumab Median IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue ORR, OS
Anton 2018 Retrospective 56 Israel NA NSCLC or Melanoma Pembrolizumab/ Nivolumab 886 cells/mm2 IHC Intratumor Tissue ORR
Antoni 2017 RCT 21 USA 58 (37–89) Melanoma Talimogene Laherparepvec plus Pembrolizumab 1000 cells/mm2 NA Intratumor Tissue ORR
Balatoni 2017 Retrospective 30 Hungary NA Melanoma Ipilimumab Median IHC Intratumor Tissue/ Lymph Node ORR, OS
Barzin 2020 Retrospective 99 USA 66(29–85) NSCLC Anti-PD-L1 NA Flow Cytometry Peripheral Blood Blood PFS, DCB
Boya 2018 Retrospective 18 USA 66(40–80) Bladder Cancer Atezolizumab/ Pembrolizumab/ Durvalumab Median IHC NA Tissue DOR, OS
Daan 2020 Retrospective 30 Netherlands 64 ± 8.6 NSCLC Nivolumab Median IHC NA Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Emily 2020 Retrospective 86 USA NA Sarcoma Pembrolizumab 95 cells/mm2 IF NA Tissue PFS
Gide 2020 Retrospective 61 Sydney 67 Melanoma Anti-PD-1 / Anti-PD-1 plus Anti-CTLA-4 Median IHC Intratumor and Peritumor Tissue PFS
Hashemi 2021 Retrospective 141 Netherlands NA NSCLC Nivolumab/ Pembrolizumab Median IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue PFS, OS
Jean 2018 Retrospective 85 France 66(45–85) NSCLC Nivolumab NA IHC NA Tissue PFS
Leisha 2019 RCT 104 US and European 53(29–82) TNBC Atezolizumab 1.35% IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Li 2018 Retrospective 270 Multiple Regions 66(38–90) Urothelial Cancer Nivolumab Median IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Maria 2019 Retrospective 58 USA NA Melanoma Pembrolizumab/ Nivolumab/ Ipilimumab plus Nivolumab Median IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue PFS, OS
Mariaelena 2020 Retrospective 100 Italy 62(28–90) Melanoma Nivolumab Median Flow Cytometry Peripheral Blood Blood ORR, OS
Markus 2020 Retrospective 56 Germany 59 ± 8.6 Head and Neck Cancer Cisplatin/ Docetaxel plus Durvalumab/ Tremelimumab Median IHC Intratumor Tissue pCR
Masayuki 2021 Retrospective 13 Japan 62(42–86) Large cell neuroen- docrine carcinoma Anti–PD-1 therapy 38/mm 2 295/mm 2 IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue ORR, PFS
Mazzaschi 2020 Prospective 109 Italy 72(41–85) NSCLC Nivolumab/ Pembrolizumab/Atezolizumab NA Flow Cytometry Peripheral Blood Blood PFS, OS
Nobuhiro 2020 Retrospective 33 Japan NA NSCLC Nivolumab NA IHC Intratumor Tissue ORR, OS
Omid 2019 Prospective 45 USA 63(21–83) Melanoma Atezolizumab Median IHC Intratumor Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Paul 2014 RCT 46 USA NA Melanoma Pembrolizumab Median IHC Intratumor and Invasive Margin Tissue ORR
Pok 2019 Retrospective 94 USA NA Melanoma Pembrolizumab/ Nivolumab/ Ipilimumab+ Nivolumab NA IF Intratumor and Stroma Tissue ORR, DCR, PFS
Roger 2018 Retrospective 137 France 58(45–66) Various Cancer Anti-PD-1/ Anti-PD-L1 Median CT Scans, RNA Sequencing NA Tissue ORR, OS
Sandra 2020 Retrospective 88 USA 72.5(33–88) Merkel Cell Carcinoma Avelumab Median IHC Invasive Margin Tissue ORR, DOR, PFS, OS
Selene 2020 Prospective 74 Italy 67.6(44–85) NSCLC Nivolumab Median Flow Cytometry Peripheral Blood Blood ORR, PFS, OS
Siwen 2019 Retrospective 38 USA 67.5(48–82) NSCLC Pembrolizumab Median IHC Intratumor Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Sonja 2019 Retrospective 163 USA NA NSCLC Durvalumab Median IHC NA Tissue PFS, OS
Sylvia 2019 RCT 33 USA 55(32–84) TNBC Atezolizumab plus Nab-Paclitaxel Median IHC Intratumor Tissue ORR, PFS, OS
Toshihiko 2019 Retrospective 96 Japan 63(56–68) Various Solid Tumor Nivolumab plus Mogamulizumab Median IHC Intratumor and Stroma Tissue BOR, TTR, DOR, PFS, OS
Yuting 2020 Retrospective 81 USA NA NSCLC Pembrolizumab/Nivolumab/ Atezolizumab NA NA Intratumor and Stroma Tissue OS
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: RCT, randomized controlled trial; NA, not available; y, year; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; RR, response rate; ORR, overall response rate; BOR, best overall response; DOR, duration-of-response; DCB, durable clinical benefit; TTR, time-to-response;PFS, progression-free survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival; TTP, time to progression; IHC, immunohistochemistry; IF, immunofluorescence; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1;PD‐L1, programmed death‐ligand 1; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4;.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Three quality parameters: selection, comparability, and outcomes were mainly consisted according to NOS. There are four, one and three criteria items in concerns of selection, comparability and outcome, independently. A score with more than six was considered as high quality. 87.9% of the included studies were considered high quality (Fig. 1B). Four studies were considered as low quality. Selection and outcome bias were the main reasons for lowering the overall quality.

3.2 Correlation between CD8+ tumor infiltration lymphocytes and prognosis

As is shown in Fig. 2A, the pooled results revealed that patients with high CD8+ TILs exhibited longer OS, compared with those with low CD8+ TILs (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.41–0.67; p < 0.001). In terms of PFS, high CD8+ TILs led to 48% reduction in the risk of disease progression compared with low CD8+ TILs (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.40–0.67; p < 0.001) (Fig. 2B). The cumulative analysis of the pooled OS and PFS showed a good reliance (eFigure 1 in the appendix). Significant heterogeneity was observed in OS (I2 = 76.34%, χ2 = 71.85, p < 0.001) and PFS (I2 = 70.65%, χ2 = 51.11, p < 0.001). In addition, high CD8+ TILs were associated with significant higher objective response rate rather than low CD8+ TILs (OR = 4.08; 95% CI: 2.73–6.10; p < 0.001), and no significant heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 24.45%, χ2 = 25.15, p =  0.16) (Fig. 2C).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of HR and OR of high CD8+ TILs versus low CD8+ TILs for OS, PFS and ORR in various cancer patients treated with ICIs. (A): pooled HR of OS for patients treated with ICIs. (B): pooled HR of PFS for patients treated with ICIs. (C): pooled OR of ORR for patients treated with ICIs.

3.3. Subgroup analyses by treatments

We examined the impact of ICIs mono therapy and ICIs combination therapy. For patient with high CD8+TILs, the pooled HR for OS was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.39–0.66; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p < 0.001) for patients with ICIs mono therapy, and non-statistically significant HR of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.12–1.66; p =  0.233) in those with ICIs-combination therapy (Fig. 3A; e Figure 2A in the appendix). High CD8+ TILs were associated with significant better PFS in ICIs combination subgroup, with the HR of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.09–0.81; p =  0.019; heterogeneity, p =  0.22) for ICIs combination subgroup while 0.52 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p < 0.001) for ICIs mono therapy subgroup (Fig. 3B; e Figure 2B in the appendix). The combined OR of the ICIs mono therapy subgroup was 4.69 (95%CI: 3.01–7.28; p < 0.001; Heterogeneity, p = 0.19), and 2.19 (95%CI: 0.89–5.40; p = 0.88; Heterogeneity, p = 0.31) in the ICIs combination therapy subgroup (Fig. 3C; eFigure 2C in the appendix).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analyses of OS, PFS, and ORR with regard to different treatment types, cancer types, CD8+ T cells location. (A): Forest plot of HR in subgroup-analyses comparing OS in patients who received ICIs. (B): Forest plot of HR in subgroup-analyses comparing PFS in patients who received ICIs. (C): Forest plot of OR in subgroup-analyses comparing ORR in patients who received ICIs.

3.4. Subgroup analyses by cancer types

When classified by cancer types, high CD8+ TILs of NSCLC (HR, 0.55; 95%CI: 0.39–0.77; p = 0.001; heterogeneity, p < 0.001) and other solid tumor (HR, 0.54; 95%CI: 0.43–0.67; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.46) were associated with improved OS, while no statistically significant improvement was reported in melanoma (HR, 0.45; 95%CI: 0.18–1.13; p = 0.088; heterogeneity, p = 0.17) (Fig. 3A; eFigure 3A in the appendix). The HRs for PFS were 0.57 (95% CI: 0.39–0.83; p = 0.003; heterogeneity, p < 0.001), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.25–0.58; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.49), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.43–0.75; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.34) in NSCLC, melanoma and other cancers, suggesting that longer PFS in patients with high CD8+ TILs (Fig. 3B; eFigure 3B in the appendix), regardless of cancer types. For NSCLC (OR, 4.04; 95% CI: 2.28–7.15; p < 0.001; Heterogeneity, p = 0.35), melanoma (OR, 6.02; 95% CI: 2.72–13.31; p < 0.001; Heterogeneity, p = 0.22) and other cancers (OR, 2.57; 95% CI: 1.38–4.77; p < 0.001; Heterogeneity, p = 0.34), patients with high CD8+ TILs had higher ORR (Fig. 3C; eFigure 3C in the appendix).

3.5. Subgroup analyses by CD8+ t cells location

The presence of CD8+ T cells in different locations has also been proposed as a biomarker for ICI efficacy. The pooled analysis revealed that patient with high CD8+ T cells in total intra-tumor and stroma (HR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.41–0.68; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.73), intra-tumor (HR, 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40–0.86; p = 0.007; heterogeneity, p < 0.001) or stroma (HR, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29–0.58; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p < 0.001) had better OS (Fig. 3A; eFigure 4A in the appendix). Similar benefit for PFS was also observed. High CD8+ T cells infiltration with an enhanced PFS exist in intra-tumor and stroma (HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33–0.79; p  =  0.003; heterogeneity, p  = 0.05), intra-tumor (HR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41–0.92; p =  0.017; heterogeneity, p = 0.01) and stroma (HR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.33–0.71; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.61), respectively (Fig. 3B; eFigure 4B in the appendix). In addition, our analyses suggested that the presence of stromal CD8+ TILs was a stronger biomarker for PFS and OS than intra-tumoral CD8+ TILs. Data on predictive value of CD8+ T cells in the invasive margin were limited and only the pooled ORR was performed due to the lack of data on OS and PFS. The subgroup analysis showed that high infiltrated CD8+ T cells in invasive margin were the strongest predictors for ORR (OR, 13.05; 95% CI: 3.79–44.86; p < 0.001; heterogeneity, p = 0.81) (Fig. 3C; eFigure 4C in the appendix).

3.6. Correlation between circulating CD8+ t cells and prognosis

We further investigated the impact of circulating CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood on OS and PFS. We did not find improved OS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.67–1.29; p  =  0.67; heterogeneity, p = 0.12) and PFS (HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.60–1.32; p = 0.56; heterogeneity, p =  0.10) in patients with high baseline circulating CD8+ T cells, compared to those with low baseline (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot HR of OS and PFS of high CD8+ T cells versus low CD8+ T cells from peripheral blood in various cancer patients treated with ICIs. (A): pooled HR of OS for patients treated with ICIs. (B): pooled HR of PFS for patients treated with ICIs.

3.7. Publication bias assessment

The funnel plot and Egger's test result revealed that publication bias existed in studies of OS (Egger's test, p < 0.001; eFigure 5A in the appendix) and PFS (Egger's test, p  <  0.001; eFigure 5B in the appendix). The funnel plot for the ORR revealed no asymmetry (Egger's test, p = 0.114; eFigure 5C in the appendix), indicating no obvious publication bias regarding ORR.

3.8. Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate the robustness of the combined outcomes, we carried out sensitivity analyses by omitting specific studies or excluding the low quality studies. The result showed that the meta-analysis had low sensitivity and overall estimates remained consistent across these analyses (eFigure 6, eFigure 7 in the appendix).

4. Discussion

Tumor regression induced by ICIs is influenced by factors related to the tumor microenvironment [36,47] In recent years, enormous efforts have been made in the assessment of the predictive value of different tumor-infiltrating immune cell subsets in patients with ICIs [48]. In this study, we found that the CD8+ TILs was a significant biomarker to predict the efficacy of ICIs across different cancers, in either single-agent ICIs or combination with other therapies. We also highlighted that high CD8+ TILs within stroma and invasive margin compartment had a better outcome than those in intra-tumor compartment. No expectation of longer survival was observed for patients with high baseline circulating CD8+ T cells.

Our result was consistent with the previous analyses of 15 tumor-infiltrating immune cell subtypes in 17 cancers of all stage; CD8+ TILs was the strongest predictive biomarker in clinical benefit for cancer patients [48]. CD8+ TIL was regarded as a key player in killing cancer cells via releasing cytotoxic molecules and cytokines, but its function could be spoilt by the signaling produced by PD-1/PD-L1 axis [49]. ICIs could significantly recruit tumor-infiltrating tumor-specific CD8+ T cells and reverses the exhausted T cell phenotype, which is critical for restored immune surveillance and tumor killing activity of CD8+ T cells [49,50], uncovering that the pre-existing antitumor adaptive immune reaction may be of great significance for patient survival.51

ICIs combination therapy has been a trend in cancer treatment. However, prognostic biomarkers related to ICIs combination therapy in cancer patients are still lacking since most studies are focused on the biomarker in patients treated with ICIs mono therapy. Besides, The combination of drugs, for example, chemotherapy, can modify the tumor microenvironment and potentially affect the composition of immune cells, which make conventional biomarkers, such as PD-L1, TMB, unable to predict the efficacy of ICIs plus chemotherapy [52,53]. Moreover, in IMpassion 130 trail, atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxed showed a benefit in PFS and OS in the metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) population, however, the IMpassion 131 trail showed a discrepant finding, even in PDL-1 positive population [54,55]. There is growing concern that the suboptimal assay used in these trials (SP142 PDL1) is partly the reason on the discrepancies observed between these trials [56]. In the biomarker evaluation of the IMpassion130 study [57], high tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells was associated with better prognosis in patients treated with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (Median PFS: 7.4 months vs. 5.6 months; Median OS: 22.6 months vs. 16.3 months), regardless of PD-L1 status. In addition, in the KEYNOTE-086 trial [58,59], a statistically significant positive linear association between expression of the tissue-resident memory T cells (one of the subtypes of memory T cells) gene signature and response rate were observed in more than 200 patients with advanced-stage TNBC receiving pembrolizumab. We proposed that CD8+ TILs may be helpful to explain the discrepant findings between Impassion130 and Impassion131. The incorporation of memory T cells evaluations into traditional TIL quantification methods might further inform decisions regarding the selection and stratification of cancer patients in future.

Compared to high CD8+ T cells infiltration in total tumor tissue or intra-tumor, a potential trend for better efficacy was presented in patients with high CD8+ T cells infiltration in stroma or invasive margin. The important role of CD8+ T cells in stroma or invasive margin has already been emphasized in postoperative cancer patients, such as colorectal cancer [51,60]. tongue squamous cell carcinoma [61] and so on. For patients treated with ICIs, Paul et al. firstly demonstrated that invasive marginal CD8+ TILs worked as a better predictive parameter than the intra-tumoral CD8+ TILs [36], but little information was provided in the underlying mechanisms regarding the spatial distribution and prognosis. Other studies may provide some explanations for this phenomenon. Some experts find that the invasive margin is a critical area for stimulating angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in tumor, which contributes to tumor invasion and metastasis [62]. CD8+ T cells at the invasive margin are negatively related to the depth of invasion and vascular invasion [62]. CD8+ T cells infiltration at the invasive margin, compared with that in the inner part of tumor, is more effective against tumor development. Moreover, despite their cytotoxic effect in tumor, prolonged exposure of CD8+ TILs in tumor bed may led to intra-tumoral CD8+ T cell exhaustion, which is mediated by tumor cell PD-L1 expression [63]. Hence, after stimulatory immunotherapy by ICIs, CD8+ TILs at the invasive margin performed higher degrees of anticancer activity as compared to intra-tumoral CD8+infiltration.

The above findings may be limited by the small number of studies and that the conclusion about predictive value of stromal CD8+ T cells in ICIs should be viewed with caution. Colt et al. have drawn a contrary conclusion that infiltration of CD8+ T cells into cancer islands was more significantly associated with the relapse-free survival than CD8+ T cell infiltration into either total tumor or stroma, while the result was not related to ICIs therapy [64]. In the stroma, CD8+TILs show a strong positive association with positive PD-L1 expression [65,66]. Low stromal CD8+ T cells infiltration was positively correlated to an increased incidence of angiolymphatic invasion [67]. These may partially explain the relationship between high stromal CD8+ T cells and clinical benefit in patients treated with ICIs. Our finding preliminarily confirmed the anti-cancer effect of CD8+ TILs, regardless of the location. However, considering the complex interactions between tumor cells and TILs in tumor immune microenvironments, which CD8+ infiltrating location (intra-tumor, stroma and invasive margin) has more effective activity in patients treated with ICIs, it needs to be further research.

There are many kinds of lymphocytes in the peripheral blood, and their functions are complex. In our result, although circulating CD8+ T cells produced the modest efficacy in patients with ICIs treatment, CD8+ T cells sub-population, such as PD-1+CD8+ T cells, TCF7+CD8+ T cells, CD8+ memory cells, and so on, are positive prognostic biomarkers for survival [10,33,[68], [69], [70]. Under physiological conditions and chronic infection, effector memory CD8+ T cell subsets with high levels of cytolytic molecules expression selectively remained in the intravascular circulation, instead of migration to tissue [71]. Whether there is greater homing of CD8+ T cells to tumor deposits and play an anticancer role in patients after ICIs treatments, it is still unclear.

Our results show that cancer patients with high CD8+ TILs have longer OS and PFS, suggesting that the presence of high CD8+ TILs is a good prognostic factor for patients treated with ICIs. At the same time, we also found that cancer patients with high CD8+ TILs had a higher ORR, suggesting that the presence of high CD8+ TILs is also a potential predictive factor of favorable outcome for patients treated with ICIs. To explore the predictive effect of CD8+ TILs, we should further explore the predictive value of CD8+ TILs among different treatment group (for example, ICI group vs. chemotherapy group). In addition, clinical trial designs should be more carefully conducted in order to distinguish the prognostic effect from the predictive effect. Our data enforce the increasing relevance of the evaluation of immune cells in clinical trial and daily practice, according to established guidelines [72]. As evidence indicates that CD8+ TILs reflect the stromal TILs (www.tilsinbreastcancer.org). Since both reflect the same population [73], both can help identifying patients that may benefit to immunotherapy, as demonstrated in several phase 3 clinical trials (Impassion130 and KN119). Considering the increasing criticisms on PDL1-assays, CD8+ TILs, as an alternative to PDL1-assays, may have more clear evidence of predicting benefit to immunotherapy.

There are several limitations in our study. First, although we performed the subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis, the heterogeneity was not significantly decreased. Second, some articles only presented ORR without OS and PFS. Few studies focused on the role of CD8+ T cells infiltration in the stroma and invasive margin. Most patients were treated with ICIs mono therapy, and ICIs combination therapy was less common. Third, not all cancer types were included in our meta-analysis, especially advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma, which is known that CD8+ infiltration is not predictive of response to immunotherapy. This may lead to selection bias and the result should be viewed with caution. Fourth, the CD8+ cutoff value in this analysis is not uniform, which needs further studies to clarify. A Bayesian approach may be able to determine an initial cut-off in CD8+ expression based on prior information from other trials [74]. According to Bellini-trial, different categories of TILs/CD8-scores could also be used to identify in which category the best responders can be found, as this would be informative for finding an appropriate cut-off. It is significant to further explore the linear association between CD8+ TILs density and response rate, when CD8+ TILs density works as a continuous variable. Fifth, the stromal components are not clearly defined in the original article and may or may not consist of invasive margin components, leading to an inconsistent conclusion on different components. Despite these limitations, this meta-analysis contributes to our understanding of the predictive role of CD8+ TILs in immunotherapy.

In conclusion, the result suggested that high CD8+ TILs were associated with favorable outcomes in cancer patients with ICIs therapy, regardless of ICIs-treatment regime, cancer types and CD8+ T cells locations.

Contributors

FL, CCL, XYC, ZHX contributed to data acquisition, data interpretation, and statistical analysis and drafting of the manuscript. LQZ, BC, SX and JFL contributed to data acquisition, data interpretation, and statistical analysis. WHL and HJX contributed to the study design, data acquisition, data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. All the other authors (RZ, ZXC and ZWY) contributed to data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors have final approval of the submitted manuscript and reached agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Data sharing

This manuscript makes use of publicly available data from published studies; therefore, no original data are available for sharing.

Funding

China National Science Foundation (Grant No. 82,022,048, 81,871,893), Key Project of Guangzhou Scentific Research Project (Grant No. 201,804,020,030), High-level university construction project of Guangzhou medical university (Grant No. 20,182,737, 201,721,007, 201,715,907, 2,017,160,107); National key R & D Program (Grant No. 2017YFC0907903 & 2017YFC0112704) and the Guangdong high level hospital construction "reaching peak" plan.

Declaration of Competing Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101134.

Contributor Information

Jianxing He, Email: drjianxing.he@gmail.com.

Wenhua Liang, Email: liangwh1987@163.com.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

mmc1.pdf (34.3MB, pdf)

Reference

  • 1.Liu B., Song Y., Liu D. Recent development in clinical applications of PD-1 and PD-L1 antibodies for cancer immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0541-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Xu-Monette Z.Y., Zhang M., Li J., Young K.H. PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade: have we found the key to unleash the antitumor immune response? Front Immunol. 2017;8:1597. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yi M., Jiao D., Xu H. Biomarkers for predicting efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Mol. Cancer. 2018;17(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s12943-018-0864-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Speiser D.E., Ho P.C., Verdeil G. Regulatory circuits of T cell function in cancer. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16(10):599–611. doi: 10.1038/nri.2016.80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sharma P., Hu-Lieskovan S., Wargo J.A., Primary Ribas A. Adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. CellCell. 2017;168(4):707–723. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oba T., Long M.D., Keler T. Overcoming primary and acquired resistance to anti-PD-L1 therapy by induction and activation of tumor-residing cDC1s. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5415. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19192-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hurkmans D.P., Kuipers M.E., Smit J. Tumor mutational load, CD8(+) T cells, expression of PD-L1 and HLA class I to guide immunotherapy decisions in NSCLC patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2020;69(5):771–777. doi: 10.1007/s00262-020-02506-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Emens L.A., Cruz C., Eder J.P. Long-term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses of Atezolizumab therapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 1 study. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(1):74–82. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Adams S., Diamond J.R., Hamilton E. Atezolizumab Plus nab-Paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with 2-year survival follow-up: a phase 1b clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(3):334–342. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sade-Feldman M., Yizhak K., Bjorgaard S.L. Defining T cell states associated with response to checkpoint immunotherapy in Melanoma. CellCell. 2018;175(4):998–1013.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Galon J., Costes A., Sanchez-Cabo F. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science. 2006;313(5795):1960–1964. doi: 10.1126/science.1129139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mahmoud S.M., Paish E.C., Powe D.G. Tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes predict clinical outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15):1949–1955. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.5037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sharma P., Shen Y., Wen S. CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are predictive of survival in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2007;104(10):3967–3972. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611618104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2009;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Parmar M.K., Torri V., Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17(24):2815–2834. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Williamson P.R., Smith C.T., Hutton J.L., Marson A.G. Aggregate data meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21(22):3337–3351. doi: 10.1002/sim.1303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Daud A.I., Loo K., Pauli M.L. Tumor immune profiling predicts response to anti-PD-1 therapy in human melanoma. J Clin Invest. 2016;126(9):3447–3452. doi: 10.1172/JCI87324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.AWt MacFarlane, Yeung H.M., Alpaugh R.K. Impacts of pembrolizumab therapy on immune phenotype in patients with high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms. Cancer Immunol, Immunother: CII. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s00262-020-02811-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pender A., Titmuss E., Pleasance E.D. Genome and Transcriptome biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2021;27(1):202–212. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Niemeijer A.N., Sahba S., Smit E.F., Lissenberg-Witte B.I., de Langen A.J., Thunnissen E. Association of tumour and stroma PD-1, PD-L1, CD3, CD4 and CD8 expression with DCB and OS to nivolumab treatment in NSCLC patients pre-treated with chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2020;123(3):392–402. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-0888-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Uryvaev A., Passhak M., Hershkovits D., Sabo E., Bar-Sela G. The role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as a predictive bio-marker of response to anti-PD1 therapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer or metastatic melanoma. Med Oncol. 2018;35(3):25. doi: 10.1007/s12032-018-1080-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ribas A., Dummer R., Puzanov I. Oncolytic Virotherapy Promotes Intra-tumoral T Cell infiltration and improves anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy. CellCell. 2017;170(6):1109. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.027. 19.e10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nabet B.Y., Esfahani M.S., Moding E.J. Noninvasive early identification of therapeutic benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition. CellCell. 2020;183(2):363. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.001. 76.e13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Deng B., Park J.H., Ren L. CD8 lymphocytes in tumors and non-synonymous mutational load correlate with prognosis of bladder cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer reports (Hoboken, NJ) 2018;1(1):e1002. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keung E.Z., Burgess M., Salazar R. Correlative analyses of the SARC028 trial reveal an association between sarcoma-associated immune infiltrate and response to Pembrolizumab. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2020;26(6):1258–1266. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gide T.N., Silva I.P., Quek C. Close proximity of immune and tumor cells underlies response to anti-PD-1 based therapies in metastatic melanoma patients. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9(1) doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1659093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hashemi S., Fransen M.F., Niemeijer A. Surprising impact of stromal TIL's on immunotherapy efficacy in a real-world lung cancer study. Lung Cancer. 2021;153:81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fumet J.D., Richard C., Ledys F. Prognostic and predictive role of CD8 and PD-L1 determination in lung tumor tissue of patients under anti-PD-1 therapy. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(8):950–960. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0220-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang L., Saci A., Szabo P.M. EMT- and stroma-related gene expression and resistance to PD-1 blockade in urothelial cancer. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):3503. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05992-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Toki M.I., Merritt C.R., Wong P.F. High-Plex predictive marker discovery for melanoma immunotherapy-treated patients using digital spatial profiling. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2019;25(18):5503–5512. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Capone M., Fratangelo F., Giannarelli D. Frequency of circulating CD8+CD73+T cells is associated with survival in nivolumab-treated melanoma patients. J Transl Med. 2020;18(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02285-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hecht M., Gostian A.O., Eckstein M. Safety and efficacy of single cycle induction treatment with cisplatin/docetaxel/durvalumab/tremelimumab in locally advanced HNSCC: first results of CheckRad-CD8. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2) doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mazzaschi G., Minari R., Zecca A. Soluble PD-L1 and Circulating CD8+PD-1+ and NK cells enclose a prognostic and predictive immune effector score in immunotherapy treated NSCLC patients. Lung Cancer. 2020;148:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.07.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nakazawa N., Yokobori T., Kaira K. High Stromal TGFBI in Lung Cancer and Intra-tumoral CD8-Positive T Cells were associated with poor prognosis and therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020;27(3):933–942. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07878-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hamid O., Molinero L., Bolen C.R. Safety, clinical activity, and biological correlates of response in patients with metastatic melanoma: results from a phase I Trial of Atezolizumab. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2019;25(20):6061–6072. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tumeh P.C., Harview C.L., Yearley J.H. PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. NatureNature. 2014;515(7528):568–571. doi: 10.1038/nature13954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wong P.F., Wei W., Smithy J.W. Multiplex quantitative analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and immunotherapy outcome in metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2019;25(8):2442–2449. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sun R., Limkin E.J., Vakalopoulou M. A radiomics approach to assess tumor-infiltrating CD8 cells and response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy: an imaging biomarker, retrospective multi-cohort study. The Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1180–1191. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30413-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.D'Angelo S.P., Bhatia S., Brohl A.S. Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: long-term data and biomarker analyses from the single-arm phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(1) doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ottonello S., Genova C., Cossu I. Association between response to Nivolumab treatment and peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Front Immunol. 2020;11:125. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hu-Lieskovan S., Lisberg A., Zaretsky J.M. Tumor characteristics associated with benefit from Pembrolizumab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2019;25(16):5061–5068. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-4275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Althammer S., Tan T.H., Spitzmüller A. Automated image analysis of NSCLC biopsies to predict response to anti-PD-L1 therapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0589-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Balatoni T., Mohos A., Papp E. Tumor-infiltrating immune cells as potential biomarkers predicting response to treatment and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving ipilimumab therapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2018;67(1):141–151. doi: 10.1007/s00262-017-2072-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Doi T., Muro K., Ishii H. A Phase I Study of the Anti-CC Chemokine Receptor 4 Antibody, Mogamulizumab, in combination with nivolumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2019;25(22):6614–6622. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1090. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Liu Y., Zugazagoitia J., Ahmed F.S. Immune Cell PD-L1 Colocalizes with Macrophages and is associated with outcome in PD-1 Pathway Blockade Therapy. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2020;26(4):970–977. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shirasawa M., Yoshida T., Takayanagi D. Activity and immune correlates of programmed Death-1 blockade therapy in patients with advanced large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Clin Lung Cancer. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ribas A. Adaptive immune resistance: how cancer protects from immune attack. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(9):915–919. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bruni D., Angell H.K., Galon J. The immune contexture and Immuno-score in cancer prognosis and therapeutic efficacy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(11):662–680. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0285-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Klebanoff C.A., Gattinoni L., Restifo N.P. CD8+ T-cell memory in tumor immunology and immunotherapy. Immunol Rev. 2006;211:214–224. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2006.00391.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Binnewies M., Roberts E.W., Kersten K. Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):541–550. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0014-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pagès F., Kirilovsky A., Mlecnik B. In situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2009;27(35):5944–5951. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.6147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gandhi L., Rodríguez-Abreu D., Gadgeel S. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung Cancer. The New Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2078–2092. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gadgeel S., Rodríguez-Abreu D., Speranza G. Updated Analysis From KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab or Placebo Plus Pemetrexed and Platinum for Previously Untreated Metastatic Non-squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(14):1505–1517. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Emens L.A., Adams S., Barrios C.H. First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: iMpassion130 final overall survival analysis. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2021;32(8):983–993. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Miles D., Gligorov J., André F. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2021;32(8):994–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Salgado R., Bellizzi A.M., Rimm D. How current assay approval policies are leading to unintended imprecision medicine. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(11):1399–1401. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30592-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Emens L.A., Molinero L., Loi S. Atezolizumab and nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: biomarker Evaluation of the IMpassion130 Study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):1005–1016. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Adams S., Schmid P., Rugo H.S. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2019;30(3):397–404. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Adams S., Loi S., Toppmeyer D. Pembrolizumab mono therapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort B of the phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2019;30(3):405–411. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pagès F., Mlecnik B., Marliot F. International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet. 2018;391(10135):2128–2139. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30789-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Huang Y., Lin C., Kao H.K. Digital Image Analysis of CD8+ and CD3+ Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:8275–8285. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S255816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sun X.F., Zhang H. Clinicopathological significance of stromal variables: angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, inflammatory infiltration, MMP and PINCH in colorectal carcinomas. Mol Cancer. 2006;5:43. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-5-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chen L., Gibbons D.L., Goswami S. Metastasis is regulated via microRNA-200/ZEB1 axis control of tumour cell PD-L1 expression and intra-tumoral immunosuppression. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5241. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Egelston C.A., Avalos C., Tu T.Y. Resident memory CD8+ T cells within cancer islands mediate survival in breast cancer patients. JCI insight. 2019;4(19) doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.130000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wang B., Pan W., Yang M. Programmed death ligand-1 is associated with tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and poorer survival in urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Sci. 2019;110(2):489–498. doi: 10.1111/cas.13887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Noh B.J., Kwak J.Y., Eom D.W. Immune classification for the PD-L1 expression and tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in colorectal adenocarcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6553-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Al-Shibli K.I., Donnem T., Al-Saad S., Persson M., Bremnes R.M., Busund L.T. Prognostic effect of epithelial and stromal lymphocyte infiltration in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(16):5220–5227. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Han J., Duan J., Bai H. TCR Repertoire Diversity of Peripheral PD-1(+)CD8(+) T Cells Predicts Clinical Outcomes after Immunotherapy in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8(1):146–154. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kim K.H., Cho J., Ku B.M. The First-week Proliferative Response of Peripheral Blood PD-1(+)CD8(+) T Cells Predicts the Response to Anti-PD-1 Therapy in Solid Tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(7):2144–2154. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Subrahmanyam P.B., Dong Z., Gusenleitner D. Distinct predictive biomarker candidates for response to anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0328-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Buggert M., Vella L.A., Nguyen S. The Identity of Human Tissue-Emigrant CD8(+) T Cells. CellCell. 2020;183(7):1946. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.019. 61.e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Salgado R., Denkert C., Demaria S. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 2015. 2014;26(2):259–271. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Savas P., Virassamy B., Ye C. Single-cell profiling of breast cancer T cells reveals a tissue-resident memory subset associated with improved prognosis. Nat. Med. 2018;24(7):986–993. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0078-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Fundytus A., Booth C.M., Tannock I.F. How low can you go? PD-L1 expression as a biomarker in trials of cancer immuno-therapy. Ann Oncol: Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2021;32(7):833–836. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.03.208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

mmc1.pdf (34.3MB, pdf)

Articles from EClinicalMedicine are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES