| Literature DB >> 30675222 |
Chenxue Jiang1, Yaoyao Zhu1, Shuiqin Tang2, Gu Zhang2, Qingren Lin3, Yaping Xu4, Jinbiao Shang1.
Abstract
Previous results on the prognostic value of programmed death-ligand (PD-L)1 expression in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remain limited and conflicting. The present study aimed to determine whether PD-L1 expression status predicts prognosis in patients with ESCC, particularly in those undergoing different postoperative treatments. Immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1 was performed on surgical specimens that were obtained from 246 patients with ESCC, who underwent surgical treatment but did not undergo preoperative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy or immune therapy. The association of PD-L1 expression with the clinicopathological factors and the association of PD-L1 expression with survival of patients with ESCC, including subgroups of patients undergoing different postoperative treatments (surgery alone, surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and surgery with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy groups), were statistically analyzed. Positive PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with advanced tumor-node metastasis stage (P=0.022). Median overall survival (OS) time was compared between patients with positive PD-L1 expression and those with negative PD-L1 expression in the overall patient population. In patients who were treated with postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy, the prognosis was significantly improved in patients who were PD-L1-positive compared with those who were PD-L1-negative (P=0.046). In patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, median OS was poorer in patients with positive PD-L1 expression compared with those with negative PD-L1 expression. However, the difference was not significant. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that PD-L1 expression status was not an independent prognostic factor in patients with ESCC. High PD-L1 expression was associated with a favorable prognosis in patients with ESCC undergoing postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy, and it was concluded that patients with positive PD-L1 expression might benefit from postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; prognosis; programmed death-ligand 1; radiotherapy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30675222 PMCID: PMC6341902 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9747
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Figure 1.Immunohistochemical staining of PD-L1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tissues. Images obtained from three different patients. Positive expression of PD-L1 [magnification, (A) ×20 and (B) ×40]. Negative expression of PD-L1 [magnification, (C) ×20 and (D) ×40]. Heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression [magnification, (E) ×10 and (F) ×20]. Image B, D and F were magnified from image A, C and E. PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Association between PD-L1 expression and clinicopathological factors in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
| PD-L1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | + | − | P-value |
| Age, years | 0.312 | ||
| <65 | 48 | 159 | |
| ≥65 | 12 | 27 | |
| Sex, n | 0.942 | ||
| Female | 6 | 18 | |
| Male | 54 | 168 | |
| CCI | 0.600 | ||
| Low | 8 | 19 | |
| Moderate | 51 | 160 | |
| High | 1 | 7 | |
| Vessel invasion | 0.137 | ||
| Yes | 13 | 59 | |
| No | 47 | 127 | |
| Differentiation | 0.542 | ||
| Well | 17 | 67 | |
| Moderate | 36 | 101 | |
| Poor | 7 | 18 | |
| Tumor location | 0.209 | ||
| Upper | 21 | 77 | |
| Middle | 39 | 103 | |
| Lower | 0 | 6 | |
| T stage | 0.109 | ||
| 1–2 | 10 | 136 | |
| 3–4 | 50 | 50 | |
| N stage | 0.213 | ||
| 0–1 | 33 | 119 | |
| 2–3 | 27 | 67 | |
| TMN stage[ | 0.022 | ||
| II | 27 | 132 | |
| III | 33 | 54 | |
| Smoking history | 0.837 | ||
| Yes | 47 | 148 | |
| No | 13 | 38 | |
| Alcohol consumption | 0.892 | ||
| Yes | 46 | 141 | |
| No | 14 | 45 | |
According to the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; TNM, tumor-node metastasis; T stage, tumor stage; N stage, node stage; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for programmed death-ligand 1 expression in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 1.01 | 0.34–3.01 | 0.993 |
| Age | 1.33 | 0.61–2.91 | 0.473 |
| Smoking history | 1.25 | 0.60–2.61 | 0.553 |
| Alcohol consumption | 1.02 | 0.45–2.33 | 0.953 |
| Vessel invasion | 2.04 | 1.00–4.17 | 0.051 |
| T stage | 1.33 | 0.59–3.01 | 0.494 |
| N stage | 1.82 | 0.57–5.82 | 0.311 |
| TNM stage | 2.30 | 1.23–4.29 | 0.009 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNM, tumor-node metastasis; T stage, tumor stage; N stage, node stage.
Figure 2.Kaplan-Meier curve of the overall survival time of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on PD-L1 expression status. PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Figure 3.Subgroup analysis of overall survival time in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients based on PD-L1 expression. Patients undergoing (A) surgery alone; (B) a combination of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy; (C) combination of surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy or (D) surgery and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of factors affecting the overall survival time of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (n=246).
| A, Univariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95% CI | P-value |
| PD-L1 | |||
| Positive vs. negative | 1.152 | 0.787–1.684 | 0.467 |
| Sex | |||
| Male vs. female | 1.106 | 0.624–1.961 | 0.730 |
| Age (years) | |||
| ≥65 vs. <65 | 1.080 | 0.700–1.665 | 0.729 |
| Smoking history | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.388 | 0.894–2.156 | 0.144 |
| Alcohol drinking | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.100 | 0.746–1.621 | 0.631 |
| CCI | |||
| Low vs. moderate vs. high | 1.176 | 0.741–1.866 | 0.491 |
| Vessel invasion | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.466 | 0.987–2.174 | 0.058 |
| Tumor differentiation | |||
| Well vs. moderate vs. poor | 1.055 | 0.814–1.366 | 0.688 |
| Tumor location | |||
| Lower vs. middle vs. upper | 1.242 | 0.907–1.704 | 0.177 |
| T stage | |||
| T1-2 vs. T3-4 | 1.100 | 0.741–1.631 | 0.637 |
| N stage | |||
| N0-1 vs. N2-3 | 1.613 | 1.152–2.257 | 0.005 |
| TNM stage[ | |||
| II vs. III | 1.623 | 1.151–2.288 | 0.006 |
| Chemotherapy | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.038 | 0.741–1.456 | 0.827 |
| Radiotherapy | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.168 | 0.838–1.631 | 0.359 |
| PD-L1 | |||
| Positive vs. negative | 1.053 | 0.698–1.589 | 0.804 |
| Sex | |||
| Male vs. female | 1.051 | 0.545–2.028 | 0.882 |
| Age, years | |||
| ≥65 vs. <65 | 1.049 | 0.652–1.690 | 0.843 |
| Smoking history | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.658 | 1.002–2.740 | 0.049 |
| Alcohol drinking | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.454 | 0.935–2.262 | 0.097 |
| CCI | |||
| Low vs. moderate vs. high | 1.053 | 0.664–1.669 | 0.826 |
| Vessel invasion | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.685 | 1.128–2.518 | 0.011 |
| Tumor differentiation | |||
| Well vs. moderate vs. poor | 1.104 | 0.838–1.456 | 0.483 |
| Tumor location | |||
| Lower vs. middle vs. upper | 1.248 | 0.908–1.718 | 0.172 |
| T stage | |||
| T1-2 vs. T3-4 | 1.068 | 0.665–1.717 | 0.785 |
| N stage | |||
| N0-1 vs. N2-3 | 1.709 | 1.215–2.404 | 0.002 |
| TNM stage[ | |||
| II vs. III | 1.350 | 0.777–2.347 | 0.287 |
| Chemotherapy | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.092 | 0.740–1.611 | 0.659 |
| Radiotherapy | |||
| Yes vs. no | 1.183 | 0.838–1.672 | 0.339 |
TNM staging was performed according to the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines. CCI, Charlson comorbidity index; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; T stage, tumor stage; N stage, node stage.