The immune landscape of cancer

We performed an extensive immunogenomic analysis of more than 10,000 tumors comprising 33 diverse cancer types by utilizing data compiled by TCGA. Across cancer types, we identified six immune subtypes—wound healing, IFN-γ dominant, inflammatory, lymphocyte depleted, immunologically quiet, and TGF-β dominant—characterized by differences in macrophage or lymphocyte signatures, Th1:Th2 cell ratio, extent of intratumoral heterogeneity, aneuploidy, extent of neoantigen load, overall cell proliferation, expression of immunomodulatory genes, and prognosis. Specific driver mutations correlated with lower (CTNNB1, NRAS, or IDH1) or higher (BRAF, TP53, or CASP8) leukocyte levels across all cancers. Multiple control modalities of the intracellular and extracellular networks (transcription, microRNAs, copy number, and epigenetic processes) were involved in tumor-immune cell interactions, both across and within immune subtypes. Our immunogenomics pipeline to characterize these heterogeneous tumors and the resulting data are intended to serve as a resource for future targeted studies to further advance the field

The Immune Landscape of Cancer

We performed an extensive immunogenomic anal-ysis of more than 10,000 tumors comprising 33diverse cancer types by utilizing data compiled byTCGA. Across cancer types, we identified six im-mune subtypes\u2014wound healing, IFN-gdominant,inflammatory, lymphocyte depleted, immunologi-cally quiet, and TGF-bdominant\u2014characterized bydifferences in macrophage or lymphocyte signa-tures, Th1:Th2 cell ratio, extent of intratumoral het-erogeneity, aneuploidy, extent of neoantigen load,overall cell proliferation, expression of immunomod-ulatory genes, and prognosis. Specific drivermutations correlated with lower (CTNNB1,NRAS,orIDH1) or higher (BRAF,TP53,orCASP8) leukocytelevels across all cancers. Multiple control modalitiesof the intracellular and extracellular networks (tran-scription, microRNAs, copy number, and epigeneticprocesses) were involved in tumor-immune cell inter-actions, both across and within immune subtypes.Our immunogenomics pipeline to characterize theseheterogeneous tumors and the resulting data areintended to serve as a resource for future targetedstudies to further advance the field

The Immune Landscape of Cancer

We performed an extensive immunogenomic analysis of more than 10,000 tumors comprising 33 diverse cancer types by utilizing data compiled by TCGA. Across cancer types, we identified six immune subtypes\u2014wound healing, IFN-\u3b3 dominant, inflammatory, lymphocyte depleted, immunologically quiet, and TGF-\u3b2 dominant\u2014characterized by differences in macrophage or lymphocyte signatures, Th1:Th2 cell ratio, extent of intratumoral heterogeneity, aneuploidy, extent of neoantigen load, overall cell proliferation, expression of immunomodulatory genes, and prognosis. Specific driver mutations correlated with lower (CTNNB1, NRAS, or IDH1) or higher (BRAF, TP53, or CASP8) leukocyte levels across all cancers. Multiple control modalities of the intracellular and extracellular networks (transcription, microRNAs, copy number, and epigenetic processes) were involved in tumor-immune cell interactions, both across and within immune subtypes. Our immunogenomics pipeline to characterize these heterogeneous tumors and the resulting data are intended to serve as a resource for future targeted studies to further advance the field. Thorsson et al. present immunogenomics analyses of more than 10,000 tumors, identifying six immune subtypes that encompass multiple cancer types and are hypothesized to define immune response patterns impacting prognosis. This work provides a resource for understanding tumor-immune interactions, with implications for identifying ways to advance research on immunotherapy

The Immune Landscape of Cancer (Immunity (2018) 48 (812–832), (S1074-7613(18)30121-3), (10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.023))

(Immunity 48, 812–830.e1–e14; April 17, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the authors neglected to include Younes Mokrab and Aaron M. Newman as co-authors and misspelled the names of authors Charles S. Rabkin and Ilya Shmulevich. The author names have been corrected here and online. In addition, the concluding sentence of the subsection “Immune Signature Compilation” in the Method Details in the original published article was deemed unclear because it did not specify differences among the gene set scoring methods. The concluding sentences now reads “Gene sets from Bindea et al., Senbabaoglu et al., and the MSigDB C7 collection were scored using single-sample gene set enrichment (ssGSEA) analysis (Barbie et al., 2009), as implemented in the GSVA R package (Hänzelmann et al., 2013). All other signatures were scored using methods found in the associated citations.