Shinkichi Takamori1, Kazuki Takada2, Koichi Azuma3, Tomoko Jogo1,4, Mototsugu Shimokawa5, Gouji Toyokawa1, Fumihiko Hirai1, Tetsuzo Tagawa1, Akihiko Kawahara6, Jun Akiba6, Isamu Okamoto7, Yoichi Nakanishi7, Yoshinao Oda4, Tomoaki Hoshino3, Yoshihiko Maehara1. 1. Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 2. Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan. k_takada@surg2.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp. 3. Division of Respirology, Neurology, and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 5. Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan. 6. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Fukuoka, Japan. 7. Research Institute for Disease of the Chest, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on lung cancer cells is a prognostic marker and a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy. However, previous clinical trials have suggested that other programmed cell death 1 ligands, including programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2), might have clinical impacts. This study aimed to analyze the prognostic significance of PD-L2 expression in lung adenocarcinoma patients. METHODS: The study included 433 patients who underwent surgical resection for lung adenocarcinoma between 2003 and 2012 at Kyushu University Hospital. Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The cutoff value for PD-L2 positivity was set at 1% according to a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve for 5-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 433 patients, 306 (70.7%) were positive for PD-L2. No significant association between PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression was observed (P = 0.094). The multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of PD-L2 positivity were never-smoker status (P = 0.002), poor differentiation grade (P = 0.008), and advanced stage (P = 0.048). The PD-L2-positive patients had significantly shorter disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.018) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.016). Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 positivity were independent predictors of OS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.027, respectively). In the subgroup analysis of the PD-L1-negative patients, PD-L2 positivity was significantly associated with shorter DFS (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the clinical characteristics of patients with PD-L1 expression may differ from those of patients with PD-L2 expression, and that both might contribute to poor prognoses. The potential role of PD-L2 expression as a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy should be investigated in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on lung cancer cells is a prognostic marker and a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy. However, previous clinical trials have suggested that other programmed cell death 1 ligands, including programmed death-ligand 2 (PD-L2), might have clinical impacts. This study aimed to analyze the prognostic significance of PD-L2 expression in lung adenocarcinomapatients. METHODS: The study included 433 patients who underwent surgical resection for lung adenocarcinoma between 2003 and 2012 at Kyushu University Hospital. Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression were evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The cutoff value for PD-L2 positivity was set at 1% according to a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve for 5-year survival. RESULTS: Of the 433 patients, 306 (70.7%) were positive for PD-L2. No significant association between PD-L1 and PD-L2 expression was observed (P = 0.094). The multivariate analysis showed that the independent predictors of PD-L2 positivity were never-smoker status (P = 0.002), poor differentiation grade (P = 0.008), and advanced stage (P = 0.048). The PD-L2-positive patients had significantly shorter disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.018) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.016). Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 positivity were independent predictors of OS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.027, respectively). In the subgroup analysis of the PD-L1-negative patients, PD-L2 positivity was significantly associated with shorter DFS (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the clinical characteristics of patients with PD-L1 expression may differ from those of patients with PD-L2 expression, and that both might contribute to poor prognoses. The potential role of PD-L2 expression as a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapy should be investigated in future studies.
Authors: S Miwa; T Nojima; A A Alomesen; H Ikeda; N Yamamoto; H Nishida; K Hayashi; A Takeuchi; K Igarashi; T Higuchi; H Yonezawa; Y Araki; S Morinaga; Y Asano; H Tsuchiya Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Iwona Kwiecień; Elżbieta Rutkowska; Małgorzata Polubiec-Kownacka; Agata Raniszewska; Piotr Rzepecki; Joanna Domagała-Kulawik Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-04
Authors: Jossie Rotman; Leontine A S den Otter; Maaike C G Bleeker; Sanne S Samuels; A Marijne Heeren; Margaretha G M Roemer; Gemma G Kenter; Henry J M A A Zijlmans; Nienke E van Trommel; Tanja D de Gruijl; Ekaterina S Jordanova Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Stephanie Tuminello; Daniel Sikavi; Rajwanth Veluswamy; Cesar Gamarra; Wil Lieberman-Cribbin; Raja Flores; Emanuela Taioli Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2020-08