He-Li Gao1, Liang Liu1, Zi-Hao Qi1, Hua-Xiang Xu1, Wen-Quan Wang1, Chun-Tao Wu1, Shi-Rong Zhang1, Jin-Zhi Xu1, Quan-Xing Ni1, Xian-Jun Yu2. 1. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China; Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai 200032, China; Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China. 2. Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China; Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai 200032, China; Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: yuxianjun@fudanpci.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has shown promise against solid tumors. However, the clinical significance of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the prognostic effect of PD-L1 in PDAC. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed until December 2016. Through database searches, we identified articles describing the relationship between PD-L1 status and PDAC patient prognosis. Meta-analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between PD-1 and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Nine studies with 989 PDAC patients were included for PD-L1 expression analysis. And 5 studies with 688 PDAC patients were included in the prognostic analysis. The PD-L1 positive rate measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was higher than that measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (P < 0.001). PDAC patients with high expression levels of PD-L1 had significantly reduced OS (HR = 2.34; 95% CI: 1.78-3.08). Subgroup analysis showed that the prognostic effect of PD-L1 levels was similar between the IHC and PCR methods. The PD-L1 positive rate was associated with PDAC T stages; the PD-L1 positive rate in the T3-4 group was higher than that in the T1-2 group (OR = 0.37; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High PD-L1 expression levels predicted a poor prognosis in PDAC patients. Thus, PD-L1 status helps determine treatment in PDAC patients.
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has shown promise against solid tumors. However, the clinical significance of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the prognostic effect of PD-L1 in PDAC. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed until December 2016. Through database searches, we identified articles describing the relationship between PD-L1 status and PDAC patient prognosis. Meta-analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between PD-1 and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Nine studies with 989 PDAC patients were included for PD-L1 expression analysis. And 5 studies with 688 PDAC patients were included in the prognostic analysis. The PD-L1 positive rate measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was higher than that measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (P < 0.001). PDAC patients with high expression levels of PD-L1 had significantly reduced OS (HR = 2.34; 95% CI: 1.78-3.08). Subgroup analysis showed that the prognostic effect of PD-L1 levels was similar between the IHC and PCR methods. The PD-L1 positive rate was associated with PDAC T stages; the PD-L1 positive rate in the T3-4 group was higher than that in the T1-2 group (OR = 0.37; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High PD-L1 expression levels predicted a poor prognosis in PDAC patients. Thus, PD-L1 status helps determine treatment in PDAC patients.
Authors: Ludmila Danilova; Won Jin Ho; Qingfeng Zhu; Teena Vithayathil; Ana De Jesus-Acosta; Nilofer S Azad; Daniel A Laheru; Elana J Fertig; Robert Anders; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Mark Yarchoan Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Klara Dorman; Miriam Gerckens; Stefan Boeck; Stefan Holdenrieder; Stephan Kruger; Kimberly Krueger; Zsuzsanna Mayer; Alexander Rupp; Danmei Zhang; Lena Weiss; C Benedikt Westphalen; Michael Haas; Michael Guenther; Steffen Ormanns; Frank Klawonn; Jens Werner; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Volker Heinemann Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Hossein Taghizadeh; Leonhard Müllauer; Robert M Mader; Martin Schindl; Gerald W Prager Journal: Ther Adv Med Oncol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 8.168
Authors: Fei Kuang; Juan Du; Mengjia Zhou; Fangyi Peng; Yu Gan; Cheng Fang; Xiaoli Yang; Bo Li; Song Su Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Lin Shui; Ke Cheng; Xiaofen Li; Pixian Shui; Xiaohan Zhou; Jian Li; Cheng Yi; Dan Cao Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.430