Comparative analysis of T-cell subsets and vessel features in matched primary colorectal tumors and corresponding resected liver metastases.

P Pia J. Osterlund (Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland) T Tove Bekkhus (Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden) E Elisabet Rodríguez-Tomàs (Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden) R Reetta Peltonen (Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland) P Pauliina Reijonen (Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Espoo, Finland) E Emerik Osterlund C Caj Haglund J Jaana Hagström H Helena Isoniemi (Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland) A Arne Ostman (Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden) A Ari Ristimäki T Teijo S. Pellinen (Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland Precision Systems Medicine, Helsinki, Finland) A Alfonso Martín-Bernabé (Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden)

Abstract

3139 Background: Outcome after liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases (CRLM) is partly determined by factors such as the number, size, and vitality of the metastases, as well as the T- and N-stage of the primary tumor. The tumor microenvironment—particularly immune cell infiltration and vascular features—also influences outcome. Data on how these factors compare between paired primary colorectal tumors and matched CRLM are limited. Methods: We used TMAs from matched primary tumors and CRLM samples of 50 patients, of which 15 were untreated and 35 had received neoadjuvant therapy (cytotoxic ± VEGF-/EGFR-targeted agents) before liver resection. Each tumor consisted of 1–3 tissue cores (1 mm) from both the tumor center and the invasive margin. Multiplex immunofluorescence was performed to assess T-cell (e.g., CD3, CD4, CD8, PD1, FOXP3, TIM3, Ki67), and vessel (claudin-5, αSMA, PDGFRβ) markers. Nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank and Spearman correlations were used for cell density comparisons. Cox regression for continuous variables was used for disease-free survival (DFS) associations. Results: We observed significantly lower densities of CD3+CD8+Ki67+, CD3+CD4+Ki67+, and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+ cells in CRLM than in paired primary (all p < .006) in both untreated and pretreated cohorts. The αSMA+PDGFRβ– vessel subset was more prevalent in CRLM compared with the primary tumor in the untreated cohort (p < .001). In the untreated cohort, larger vessel size in CRLM (but not in the primary tumor) showed a positive correlation with CD3+CD8+PD1+, CD3+CD4+PD1+, and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+ densities (Spearman r = .54–.60, p = .02–.04). In the pretreated cohort, higher tumor vitality and/or CDX2+ expression in CRLM (indicative of poor treatment response) were each negatively correlated with cytotoxic (CD3+CD8+) and helper T-cell (CD3+CD4+) subsets (r = -.42 to -.63, p < .01). DFS after metastasectomy was associated with vessel and T-cell features. Regarding vessel metrics in the small untreated cohort, αSMA–PDGFRβ– vessel subset in primary showed a negative trend (p = .06) as did smaller vessel size in CRLM (p = .06). CD3–CD4+TIM3+ in CRLM was negatively associated with DFS in pretreated (p = .04), with a trend also in untreated (p = .10). Conclusions: Densities of certain T-cell subsets are significantly lower in matched CRLM than in primary tumors indicating immune desert phenotype. Vessel subset profiling suggests differences between primary tumors and CRLM, possibly relevant for treatment response. Poor pretreatment effect, i.e., high vitality and CDX2+ density in CRLM, was negatively correlated with several T-cell subsets, a correlation not seen in untreated. The poor prognosis association of CD3–CD4+TIM3+ cells in CRLM merits further investigation.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 3139-3139
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (13)

P

Pia J. Osterlund

Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland

T

Tove Bekkhus

Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden

E

Elisabet Rodríguez-Tomàs

Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden

R

Reetta Peltonen

Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

P

Pauliina Reijonen

Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Espoo, Finland

E

Emerik Osterlund

C

Caj Haglund

J

Jaana Hagström

H

Helena Isoniemi

Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

A

Arne Ostman

Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden

A

Ari Ristimäki

T

Teijo S. Pellinen

Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland Precision Systems Medicine, Helsinki, Finland

A

Alfonso Martín-Bernabé

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden