Multi-omics analysis unravels the underlying mechanisms of poor prognosis and differential therapeutic responses of solid predominant lung adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND: Solid predominant adenocarcinoma (SPA) has been reported to be a subtype with poor prognosis and unsatisfactory response to chemotherapy and targeted therapy in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). However, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown and the suitability of immunotherapy for SPA has not been investigated. METHODS: We conducted a multi-omics analysis of 1078 untreated LUAD patients with clinicopathologic, genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data from both public and internal cohorts to determine the underlying mechanisms of poor prognosis and differential therapeutic responses of SPA and to investigate the potential of immunotherapy for SPA. The suitability of immunotherapy for SPA was further confirmed in a cohort of LUAD patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy in our center. RESULTS: Along with its aggressive clinicopathologic behaviors, SPA had significantly higher tumor mutation burden (TMB) and number of pathways altered, lower TTF-1 and Napsin-A expression, higher proliferation score and a more immunoresistant microenvironment than non-solid predominant adenocarcinoma (Non-SPA), accounting for its worse prognosis. Additionally, SPA had significantly lower frequency of therapeutically targetable driver mutations and higher frequency of EGFR/TP53 co-mutation which was related to resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, indicating a lower potential for targeted therapy. Meanwhile, SPA was enriched for molecular features associated with poor response to chemotherapy (higher chemoresistence signature score, lower chemotherapy response signature score, hypoxic microenvironment, and higher frequency of TP53 mutation). Instead, muti-omics profiling revealed that SPA had stronger immunogenicity and was enriched for positive biomarkers for immunotherapy (higher TMB and T cell receptor diversity; higher PD-L1 expression and more immune cell infiltration; higher frequency of gene mutations predicting efficacious immunotherapy, and elevated expression of immunotherapy-related gene signatures). Furthermore, in the cohort of LUAD patients who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, SPA had higher pathological regression rates than Non-SPA and patients with major pathological response were enriched in SPA, confirming that SPA was more prone to respond to immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Non-SPA, SPA was enriched for molecular features associated with poor prognosis, unsatisfactory response to chemotherapy and targeted therapy, and good response to immunotherapy, indicating more suitability for immunotherapy while less suitability for chemotherapy and targeted therapy.