C Brüggemann1,2, M C Kirchberger1, S M Goldinger3, B Weide4, A Konrad5, M Erdmann1, D Schadendorf6, R S Croner7, L Krähenbühl3, K C Kähler8, C Hafner9, W Leisgang1, F Kiesewetter1, R Dummer3, G Schuler1, M Stürzl5, L Heinzerling10. 1. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 91052, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Division of Molecular and Experimental Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. 8. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 9. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 10. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 91052, Erlangen, Germany. lheinzer@post.harvard.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: PD-L1 is established as a predictive marker for therapy of non-small cell lung cancer with pembrolizumab. Furthermore, PD-L1 positive melanoma has shown more favorable outcomes when treated with anti-PD1 antibodies and dacarbazine compared to PD-L1 negative melanoma. However, the role of PD-L1 expression with regard to response to checkpoint inhibition with anti-CTLA-4 is not clear, yet. In addition, the lack of standardization in the immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1 makes the comparison of results difficult. In this study, we investigated the PD-L1 gene expression with a new fully automated technique via RT-PCR and correlated the findings with the response to the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within a retrospective multi-center trial, PD-L1 gene expression was evaluated in 78 melanoma patients in a total of 111 pre-treatment tumor samples from 6 skin cancer centers and analyzed with regard to response to ipilimumab. For meaningful statistical analysis, the cohort was enriched for responders with 30 responders and 48 non-responders. Gene expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR after extracting mRNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue and correlated with results from immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The evaluation of PD-L1 expression based on mRNA level is feasible. Correlation between PD-L1 expression as assessed by IHC and RT-PCR showed varying levels of concordance depending on the antibody employed. RT-PCR should be further investigated to measure PD-L1 expression, since it is a semi-quantitative method with observer-independent evaluation. With this approach, there was no statistical significant difference in the PD-L1 expression between responders and non-responders to the therapy with ipilimumab. The evaluation of PD-L1 expression based on mRNA level is feasible. Correlation between PD-L1 expression as assessed by IHC and RT-PCR showed varying levels of concordance depending on the antibody employed. RT-PCR should be further investigated to measure PD-L1 expression, since it is a semi-quantitative method with observer-independent evaluation. With this approach, there was no statistical significant difference in the PD-L1 expression between responders and non-responders to the therapy with ipilimumab.
INTRODUCTION:PD-L1 is established as a predictive marker for therapy of non-small cell lung cancer with pembrolizumab. Furthermore, PD-L1 positive melanoma has shown more favorable outcomes when treated with anti-PD1 antibodies and dacarbazine compared to PD-L1 negative melanoma. However, the role of PD-L1 expression with regard to response to checkpoint inhibition with anti-CTLA-4 is not clear, yet. In addition, the lack of standardization in the immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1 makes the comparison of results difficult. In this study, we investigated the PD-L1 gene expression with a new fully automated technique via RT-PCR and correlated the findings with the response to the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within a retrospective multi-center trial, PD-L1 gene expression was evaluated in 78 melanomapatients in a total of 111 pre-treatment tumor samples from 6 skin cancer centers and analyzed with regard to response to ipilimumab. For meaningful statistical analysis, the cohort was enriched for responders with 30 responders and 48 non-responders. Gene expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR after extracting mRNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue and correlated with results from immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The evaluation of PD-L1 expression based on mRNA level is feasible. Correlation between PD-L1 expression as assessed by IHC and RT-PCR showed varying levels of concordance depending on the antibody employed. RT-PCR should be further investigated to measure PD-L1 expression, since it is a semi-quantitative method with observer-independent evaluation. With this approach, there was no statistical significant difference in the PD-L1 expression between responders and non-responders to the therapy with ipilimumab. The evaluation of PD-L1 expression based on mRNA level is feasible. Correlation between PD-L1 expression as assessed by IHC and RT-PCR showed varying levels of concordance depending on the antibody employed. RT-PCR should be further investigated to measure PD-L1 expression, since it is a semi-quantitative method with observer-independent evaluation. With this approach, there was no statistical significant difference in the PD-L1 expression between responders and non-responders to the therapy with ipilimumab.
Authors: Jules Gadiot; Anna I Hooijkaas; Andrew D M Kaiser; Harm van Tinteren; Hester van Boven; Christian Blank Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Naiyer A Rizvi; Matthew D Hellmann; Alexandra Snyder; Pia Kvistborg; Vladimir Makarov; Jonathan J Havel; William Lee; Jianda Yuan; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Martin L Miller; Natasha Rekhtman; Andre L Moreira; Fawzia Ibrahim; Cameron Bruggeman; Billel Gasmi; Roberta Zappasodi; Yuka Maeda; Chris Sander; Edward B Garon; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Ton N Schumacher; Timothy A Chan Journal: Science Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Bart Neyns; Gerald Linette; Sylvie Negrier; Jose Lutzky; Luc Thomas; William Waterfield; Dirk Schadendorf; Michael Smylie; Troy Guthrie; Jean-Jacques Grob; Jason Chesney; Kevin Chin; Kun Chen; Axel Hoos; Steven J O'Day; Celeste Lebbé Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paul C Tumeh; Christina L Harview; Jennifer H Yearley; I Peter Shintaku; Emma J M Taylor; Lidia Robert; Bartosz Chmielowski; Marko Spasic; Gina Henry; Voicu Ciobanu; Alisha N West; Manuel Carmona; Christine Kivork; Elizabeth Seja; Grace Cherry; Antonio J Gutierrez; Tristan R Grogan; Christine Mateus; Gorana Tomasic; John A Glaspy; Ryan O Emerson; Harlan Robins; Robert H Pierce; David A Elashoff; Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jeffrey M Conroy; Sarabjot Pabla; Mary K Nesline; Sean T Glenn; Antonios Papanicolau-Sengos; Blake Burgher; Jonathan Andreas; Vincent Giamo; Yirong Wang; Felicia L Lenzo; Wiam Bshara; Maya Khalil; Grace K Dy; Katherine G Madden; Keisuke Shirai; Konstantin Dragnev; Laura J Tafe; Jason Zhu; Matthew Labriola; Daniele Marin; Shannon J McCall; Jeffrey Clarke; Daniel J George; Tian Zhang; Matthew Zibelman; Pooja Ghatalia; Isabel Araujo-Fernandez; Luis de la Cruz-Merino; Arun Singavi; Ben George; Alexander C MacKinnon; Jonathan Thompson; Rajbir Singh; Robin Jacob; Deepa Kasuganti; Neel Shah; Roger Day; Lorenzo Galluzzi; Mark Gardner; Carl Morrison Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Richard A Blidner; Brian C Haynes; Stephen Hyter; Sarah Schmitt; Ziyan Y Pessetto; Andrew K Godwin; Dan Su; Patrick Hurban; Léon C van Kempen; Maria L Aguirre; Shobha Gokul; Robyn D Cardwell; Gary J Latham Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 5.341