Drew Pratt1,2, Gifty Dominah3, Graham Lobel3, Arnold Obungu3, John Lynes3, Victoria Sanchez3, Nicholas Adamstein3, Xiang Wang3, Nancy A Edwards3, Tianxia Wu4, Dragan Maric5, Amber J Giles6, Mark R Gilbert1,6, Martha Quezado1, Edjah K Nduom3. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Clinical Trials Unit, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Flow and Imaging Cytometry Core Facility, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Neuro-Oncology Branch, CCR, NCI, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibition has demonstrated clinical efficacy in a variety of solid tumors. Reports of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in glioblastoma are highly variable (ranging from 6% to 88%) and its role as a prognostic marker has yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To validate the prevalence and prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in a large cohort of diffuse gliomas according to the 2016 revised WHO classification. METHODS: Using tissue microarrays, we compared 5 PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (n = 56) and validated expression (n = 183) using quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) and RNA in situ hybridization (RISH). Expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and published studies were compared with clinical outcome. Multiplexed immunophenotyping was used to identify PD-L1+ cell populations in post-treatment glioblastoma. RESULTS: Using a 5% cut-off, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with a poor prognosis in both histologically defined (n = 125, log-rank P < .001) and recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma (n = 60, log-rank P = .015). PD-L1 remained a significant negative prognosticator in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.96, P = .021). Analysis of TCGA data confirmed decreased overall survival in recurrent non-glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) glioblastoma (n = 12, log-rank P = .023), but not in glioblastoma as a group (n = 444, log-rank P = .135). PD-L1 RISH showed a significant correlation with IHC (P < .0001). PD-L1 was observed in the proliferating perivascular stem cell and immune niche of post-treatment glioblastoma. CONCLUSION: A 5% PD-L1 expression cut-off identified a subset of glioblastoma that is associated with a worse clinical outcome. This association remained significant within the newly defined IDH-wildtype classification. These findings could have implications for patient stratification in future clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2018.
BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibition has demonstrated clinical efficacy in a variety of solid tumors. Reports of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in glioblastoma are highly variable (ranging from 6% to 88%) and its role as a prognostic marker has yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To validate the prevalence and prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in a large cohort of diffuse gliomas according to the 2016 revised WHO classification. METHODS: Using tissue microarrays, we compared 5 PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (n = 56) and validated expression (n = 183) using quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) and RNA in situ hybridization (RISH). Expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and published studies were compared with clinical outcome. Multiplexed immunophenotyping was used to identify PD-L1+ cell populations in post-treatment glioblastoma. RESULTS: Using a 5% cut-off, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with a poor prognosis in both histologically defined (n = 125, log-rank P < .001) and recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma (n = 60, log-rank P = .015). PD-L1 remained a significant negative prognosticator in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.96, P = .021). Analysis of TCGA data confirmed decreased overall survival in recurrent non-glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) glioblastoma (n = 12, log-rank P = .023), but not in glioblastoma as a group (n = 444, log-rank P = .135). PD-L1 RISH showed a significant correlation with IHC (P < .0001). PD-L1 was observed in the proliferating perivascular stem cell and immune niche of post-treatment glioblastoma. CONCLUSION: A 5% PD-L1 expression cut-off identified a subset of glioblastoma that is associated with a worse clinical outcome. This association remained significant within the newly defined IDH-wildtype classification. These findings could have implications for patient stratification in future clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2018.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glioblastoma; Immunohistochemistry; Immunotherapy; In situ hybridization; PD-1; PD-L1; RNA
Authors: Janis M Taube; Alison Klein; Julie R Brahmer; Haiying Xu; Xiaoyu Pan; Jung H Kim; Lieping Chen; Drew M Pardoll; Suzanne L Topalian; Robert A Anders Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Anastasia Murat; Eugenia Migliavacca; Thierry Gorlia; Wanyu L Lambiv; Tal Shay; Marie-France Hamou; Nicolas de Tribolet; Luca Regli; Wolfgang Wick; Mathilde C M Kouwenhoven; Johannes A Hainfellner; Frank L Heppner; Pierre-Yves Dietrich; Yitzhak Zimmer; J Gregory Cairncross; Robert-Charles Janzer; Eytan Domany; Mauro Delorenzi; Roger Stupp; Monika E Hegi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah T Garber; Yuuri Hashimoto; Shiao-Pei Weathers; Joanne Xiu; Zoran Gatalica; Roel G W Verhaak; Shouhao Zhou; Gregory N Fuller; Mustafa Khasraw; John de Groot; Sandeep K Reddy; David Spetzler; Amy B Heimberger Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Hoon Kim; Siyuan Zheng; Seyed S Amini; Selene M Virk; Tom Mikkelsen; Daniel J Brat; Jonna Grimsby; Carrie Sougnez; Florian Muller; Jian Hu; Andrew E Sloan; Mark L Cohen; Erwin G Van Meir; Lisa Scarpace; Peter W Laird; John N Weinstein; Eric S Lander; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Matthew Meyerson; Lynda Chin; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Roel G W Verhaak Journal: Genome Res Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Tiffany R Hodges; Martina Ott; Joanne Xiu; Zoran Gatalica; Jeff Swensen; Shouhao Zhou; Jason T Huse; John de Groot; Shulin Li; Willem W Overwijk; David Spetzler; Amy B Heimberger Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Daniel L Adams; Diane K Adams; Jianzhong He; Neda Kalhor; Ming Zhang; Ting Xu; Hui Gao; James M Reuben; Yawei Qiao; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Martin J Edelman; Cha-Mei Tang; Steven H Lin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: John Lynes; Sadhana Jackson; Victoria Sanchez; Gifty Dominah; Xiang Wang; Averie Kuek; Christina Piper Hayes; Sarah Benzo; Gretchen C Scott; Prashant Chittiboina; Kareem A Zaghloul; Deric M Park; Jing Wu; Christopher S Hourigan; Amber J Giles; Tianxia Wu; Dragan Maric; Jinguo Chen; Martha Quezado; John D Heiss; Mark R Gilbert; Edjah K Nduom Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: John P Lynes; Anthony K Nwankwo; Hannah P Sur; Victoria E Sanchez; Kwadwo A Sarpong; Oluwatobi I Ariyo; Gifty A Dominah; Edjah K Nduom Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 13.751