Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 16;13(1):4397.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31538-3.

CDX-2 expression correlates with clinical outcomes in MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

Affiliations

CDX-2 expression correlates with clinical outcomes in MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

Pina Ziranu et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) showed efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with mismatch-repair deficiency or high microsatellite instability (dMMR-MSI-H). Unfortunately, a patient's subgroup did not benefit from immunotherapy. Caudal-related homeobox transcription factor 2 (CDX-2) would seem to influence immunotherapy's sensitivity, promoting the chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 14 (CXCL14) expression. Therefore, we investigated CDX-2 role as a prognostic-predictive marker in patients with mCRC MSI-H. We retrospectively collected data from 14 MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICIs between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was the 12-month progression-free-survival (PFS) rate. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The PFS rate at 12 months was 81% in CDX-2 positive patients vs 0% in CDX-2 negative patients (p = 0.0011). The median PFS was not reached (NR) in the CDX-2 positive group versus 2.07 months (95%CI 2.07-10.8) in CDX-2 negative patients (p = 0.0011). Median OS was NR in CDX-2-positive patients versus 2.17 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.17-18.7) in CDX2-negative patients (p = 0.026). All CDX-2-positive patients achieved a disease response, one of them a complete response. Among CDX-2-negative patients, one achieved stable disease, while the other progressed rapidly (ORR: 100% vs 0%, p = 0.0005; DCR: 100% vs 50%, p = 0.02). Twelve patients received 1st-line pembrolizumab (11 CDX-2 positive and 1 CDX-2 negative) not reaching median PFS, while two patients (1 CDX-2 positive and 1 CDX-2 negative) received 3rd-line pembrolizumab reaching a median PFS of 10.8 months (95% CI, 10.8-12.1; p = 0.036). Although our study reports results on a small population, the prognostic role of CDX-2 in CRC seems confirmed and could drive a promising predictive role in defining the population more sensitive to immunotherapy treatment. Modulating the CDX-2/CXCL14 axis in CDX-2-negative patients could help overcome primary resistance to immunotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Progression Free Survival: The median PFS was not reached in CDX-2-positive patients (dotted/green line) versus 2.07 months (95%CI 2.07–10.8) in CDX2-negative patients (continuous/blue line) (p = 0.0011) The proportion of patients without disease progression at 12 months was 81% in the CDX-2-positive group. All the two CDX-2-negative patients had discontinued treatment due to disease progression.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overall Survival: Median Overall Survival was not reached in CDX-2-positive patients (dotted/green line) versus 2.17 months (95%CI 2.17–18.7) in CDX-2-negative patients (continuous/blue line) (p = 0.026).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The relationship between CDX-2 expression and immunotherapy response: CDX-2 interacts with histone acetyltransferase p300. The CDX-2/p300 complex activates the enhancer of CXCL14 to promote its expression. Lack of expression of the CDX2/CXCL14 axis reduces the recruitment of immune cells to the microenvironment, inhibiting the therapeutic efficacy of natural killer cell-mediated cancer immunotherapy.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lai E, Liscia N, Donisi C, et al. Molecular-biology-driven treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancers. 2020 doi: 10.3390/cancers12051214. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Puzzoni M, Ziranu P, Demurtas L, et al. Why precision medicine should be applied across the continuum of care for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Future Oncol. Lond. Engl. 2020;16(2):4337–4339. doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0624. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ziranu P, Lai E, Schirripa M, et al. The role of p53 expression in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan and cetuximab as later line treatment. Target Oncol. 2021;16(4):517–527. doi: 10.1007/s11523-021-00816-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basile D, Garattini SK, Bonotto M, et al. Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer: Where are we heading? Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2017;17(6):709–721. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2017.1315405. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances