Literature DB >> 31366979

Prognostic implications of soluble programmed death-ligand 1 and its dynamics during chemotherapy in unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Hyunkyung Park1, Ju-Hee Bang2, Ah-Rong Nam2, Ji Eun Park2, Mei Hua Jin2, Yung-Jue Bang1,2, Do-Youn Oh3,4.   

Abstract

In pancreatic cancer, acquiring a sufficient amount of tumor tissue is an obstacle. The soluble form of PD-L1 (sPD-L1) may have immunosuppressive activity. Here, we evaluated the prognostic implications of sPD-L1 in unresectable pancreatic cancer. We prospectively enrolled 60 patients treated with first-line FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. We collected blood samples at diagnosis, first response assessment and disease progression. Serum sPD-L1 levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The median sPD-L1 level was 1.7 ng/mL (range, 0.4-5.7 ng/mL). Patients with low sPD-L1 level (<4.6 ng/mL) at diagnosis showed better overall survival (OS) than those with high sPD-L1 level (P = 0.015). Multivariate analysis identified sPD-L1 and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as independent prognostic factors for OS. During chemotherapy, more patients achieved complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) as their best response when sPD-L1 was decreased at the first response assessment (P = 0.038). In the patients who achieved CR/PR as their best response, sPD-L1 was significantly higher at the time of disease progression than at the first response assessment (P = 0.025). In conclusion, the sPD-L1 level at diagnosis exhibits a prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, sPD-L1 dynamics correlate with disease course and could be used to understand various changes in the tumor microenvironment during chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31366979      PMCID: PMC6668419          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-47330-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


Introduction

With recent advances in immuno-oncology, many biomarkers of immune checkpoints have received increasing attention due to their roles as prognostic factors and therapeutic targets. Biomarkers such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) ligands, interleukin-10, transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are well-known molecules involved in escape from host immune surveillance and are associated with cancer cell proliferation[1,2]. In particular, PD-L1 is the most promising immune checkpoint molecule used as a potential target for immunotherapy. PD-L1, a B7 superfamily member, is expressed in tumor cells and binds to programmed death-1 (PD-1) on T cells. After the PD-L1/PD-1 interaction occurs, inhibitory signals are transmitted to T cells, thereby suppressing T cell proliferation and reducing cytokine secretion[1]. Tumor cells are then able to escape immune recognition and the host immune response. In various cancers, such as lung cancer, breast cancer, and renal cell carcinoma, overexpression of PD-L1 in tumor cells results in aggressive behavior and is associated with a poor prognosis[3-5]. Additionally, PD-L1 expression can predict treatment response in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent-treated patients[6]. Therefore, an evaluation of PD-L1 expression could predict patient prognosis and treatment response in certain types of cancer. A biopsy is needed to evaluate PD-L1 expression in tumor tissue and the tumor microenvironment, which is the primary limitation of this method. However, soluble serum biomarkers have been regarded as promising surrogates because they can reflect the tumor status and predict survival outcomes through a minimally invasive modality[7,8]. Therefore, the use of soluble markers could help in understanding the dynamics of the interaction between host immune responses and tumor cells or the tumor microenvironment. The soluble form of PD-L1 (sPD-L1) has been reported to have prognostic value in various cancers, including lymphoma, gastric cancer, and lung cancer[7-9]. In addition, a few studies have recently reported the dynamics of sPD-L1 in cancer patients during chemotherapy treatment[8]. Despite previous study results, in pancreatic cancer, the prognostic role of the PD-L1/PD-1 signaling axis remains uncertain. Some studies confirmed the prognostic importance of the PD-L1/PD-1 signaling axis in pancreatic cancer[10-12]. However, the results of an early trial of a monotherapy checkpoint blockade approach were disappointing and suggested that evaluating the immune checkpoint alone may be insufficient to explain the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer[13]. Therefore, the role of PD-L1/PD-1 in pancreatic cancer requires further investigation, especially because in many cases, it is difficult to acquire a sufficient amount of tumor tissue to evaluate PD-L1 expression, and the value of sPD-L1 has not yet been studied. The aims of this study were to measure serum sPD-L1 levels in unresectable pancreatic cancer patients who were treated with palliative first-line chemotherapy and to evaluate the prognostic role of sPD-L1 as well as its dynamics during chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient characteristics

We prospectively recruited pathologically confirmed unresectable pancreatic cancer patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX as their first-line palliative chemotherapy regimen. Between 2013 and 2015, 60 patients who provided informed consent for the biomarker analysis study at Seoul National University Hospital were enrolled; all were ethnically Korean. FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 on day 1), irinotecan (180 mg/m2 on day 1), leucovorin (400 mg/m2 on day 1), fluorouracil (5-FU; 400 mg/m2 on day 1), and a continuous infusion of 5-FU (2,400 mg/m2 on day 1 over 48 hours). Clinical data were collected by reviewing medical records that included demographic information and the results of laboratory exams, including total bilirubin, albumin, and cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) levels and blood cell counts (neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were calculated by dividing the neutrophil or platelet count, respectively, by the lymphocyte count. The results of a laboratory test performed at the time of diagnosis with unresectable pancreatic cancer were used in the analysis. We evaluated the disease state during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy by computed tomography examination every three chemotherapy cycles. Response assessment was performed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria version 1.1[14]. The best overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) as their overall response during chemotherapy[15].

Measurement of sPD-L1 levels

We prospectively collected blood samples from patients at the time of diagnosis (prechemotherapy), at the first response assessment (postchemotherapy, after three cycles of chemotherapy), and at the time of disease progression. Serum sPD-L1 levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; PDCD1LG1 ELISA kit, USCN Life Science) according to the manufacturer’s instructions[16]. Each sample was analyzed in duplicate.

Statistical analysis

Fisher’s exact test or Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. The comparison of continuous variables was performed using an independent or paired t-test or one-way ANOVA, as appropriate. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. PFS was defined as the time from the date of initiation of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy to the date of disease progression. OS was defined as the time from the date of initiation of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy to the date of either death or last follow-up. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was used to determine the cut-off values of the NLR, the PLR, and sPD-L1 levels to best predict survival. The cut-off values used for albumin, total bilirubin, and CA 19-9 levels were the corresponding normal values. Clinical variables with univariate P-values < 0.2 were considered for inclusion in multivariate analyses, which were performed using the logistic regression model or Cox proportional hazard model, as appropriate. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a statistically significant difference was defined as P < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the institutional review board at Seoul National University Hospital (IRB; H-1307-146-507) and was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki for biomedical research. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

The mean and median values of the sPD-L1 level at initial diagnosis (prechemotherapy) (n = 60) were 2.2 and 1.7 ng/mL (range, 0.4–5.7 ng/mL), respectively. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the cut-off value of sPD-L1, and the cut-off value of 4.6 ng/mL achieved the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of OS. Baseline characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1, and the patients were divided into two groups according to their sPD-L1 levels. No statistical differences in the sPD-L1 level were observed when patients were stratified by different clinical characteristics, including age, sex, disease extent, CA 19-9 level, total bilirubin level, albumin level, NLR value, and PLR value (all P > 0.05).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients stratified according to the sPD-L1 level.

VariablesPD-L1 < 4.6 ng/mL (N = 52)sPDL1 ≥ 4.6 ng/mL (N = 8)P-value
Age, years≥6023 (44.2)2 (25.0)0.449
<6029 (55.8)6 (75.0)
SexMale31 (59.6)2 (25.0)0.124
Female21 (40.4)6 (75.0)
Disease extentLocally advanced13 (25.0)1 (12.5)0.667
Metastatic39 (75.0)7 (87.5)
CA19-9, U/mLElevated (≥37.0)39 (75.0)8 (100.0)0.182
Decreased (<37.0)13 (25.0)0 (0.0)
Total bilirubin, mg/dLElevated (>1.2)12 (23.1)0 (0.0)0.338
Normal (≤1.2)40 (76.9)8 (100.0)
Albumin, g/dLNormal (≥3.3)49 (94.2)8 (100.0)1.000
Decreased (<3.3)3 (5.8)0 (0.0)
NLRIncreased (≥1.83)41 (78.8)5 (62.5)0.374
Decreased (<1.83)11 (21.2)3 (37.5)
NLRMean3.00 (±1.55)2.97 (±1.70)0.940
PLRIncreased (≥109.6)37 (71.2)6 (75.0)1.000
Decreased (<109.6)15 (28.8)2 (25.0)
PLRMean156.6 (±60.01)171.8 (±72.55)0.388

Abbreviations: cancer antigen 19-9 = CA 19-9; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; and sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients stratified according to the sPD-L1 level. Abbreviations: cancer antigen 19-9 = CA 19-9; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; and sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1. Patient responses to FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy during the follow-up period were as follows: 2/60 (3.3%) patients achieved a CR; 20/60 (33.3%) patients achieved a PR; 30/60 (50%) patients achieved stable disease (SD); and 8/60 (13.3%) patients exhibited progressive disease (PD). Twenty-two (36.7%) patients achieved a CR or PR as their overall response during chemotherapy.

Survival outcomes

The median follow-up duration of the 60 patients was 11.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9–14.8 months), and the median PFS and OS were 6.5 (95% CI, 4.9–8.1 months) and 10.3 (95% CI, 8.5–12.1 months) months, respectively. In a univariate analysis for PFS, older age (≥60 years), a low sPD-L1 level (<4.6 ng/mL), a low NLR (<1.83), and a low PLR (<109.6) were associated with prolonged PFS (Table 2; Fig. 1A). In a multivariate analysis, age, the NLR, the PLR, and sPD-L1 were no longer significantly associated with prolonged PFS, although a high NLR (hazard ratio [HR], 3.141, P = 0.061) and high sPD-L1 level (HR, 2.077, P = 0.080) showed a trend toward worse PFS.
Table 2

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for progression-free survival.

VariableUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
mPFS (95% CI) (months)P-valueHR95% CIP-value
Age, years≥6010.5 (7.0–14.0)0.02610.054
<605.9 (3.7–8.1)1.9540.989–3.862
SexMale7.8 (5.0–10.6)0.464
Female5.9 (4.3–7.6)
Disease extentLAPC9.0 (3.6–14.3)0.16010.964
MPC6.2 (4.5–7.9)1.0220.401–2.606
CA 19-9, U/mL≥37.06.3 (4.6–8.1)0.369
<37.07.8 (5.1–10.6)
Total bilirubin, mg/dL>1.25.8 (5.1–6.6)0.448
≤1.26.9 (5.3–8.6)
Albumin, g/dL≥3.3Not reached0.428
<3.36.5 (4.9–8.0)
sPD-L1, ng/mL≥4.64.1 (1.5–6.7)0.0212.0770.915–4.7120.080
<4.67.8 (5.3–10.3)1
NLR≥1.836.2 (4.8–7.6)0.0083.1410.950–10.3910.061
<1.83Not reached1
PLR≥109.66.2 (5.2–7.3)0.0111.0600.392–2.8660.908
<109.610.5 (0.1–22.3)1

Abbreviations: LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; mPFS = median progression-free survival; CI = confidence interval; and HR = hazard ratio.

Figure 1

Survival outcomes. (A) Progression-free survival of patients stratified according to soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1) levels (median 4.1 vs. 7.8 months, P = 0.021). (B) Overall survival of patients stratified according to sPD-L1 levels (median 8.0 vs. 12.6 months, P = 0.003). (C) Overall survival of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients stratified according to sPD-L1 levels (median 8.4 months vs. 10.2 months, P = 0.028).

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for progression-free survival. Abbreviations: LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; mPFS = median progression-free survival; CI = confidence interval; and HR = hazard ratio. Survival outcomes. (A) Progression-free survival of patients stratified according to soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1) levels (median 4.1 vs. 7.8 months, P = 0.021). (B) Overall survival of patients stratified according to sPD-L1 levels (median 8.0 vs. 12.6 months, P = 0.003). (C) Overall survival of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients stratified according to sPD-L1 levels (median 8.4 months vs. 10.2 months, P = 0.028). In a univariate analysis for OS, the prognostic factors indicative of improved OS were older age (≥60 years), a low sPD-L1 level (<4.6 ng/mL), and a low NLR (<1.83) (Table 3; Fig. 1B). In a multivariate analysis, a low sPD-L1 level (HR, 2.796, 95% CI, 1.221–6.400, P = 0.015) and low NLR (HR, 4.823, 95% CI, 1.554–14.971, P = 0.006) were independent prognostic factors for prolonged OS.
Table 3

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for overall survival.

VariableUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysis
mOS (95% CI) (months)P-valueHR95% CIP-value
Age, years≥6017.1 (0.3–33.9)0.02910.087
<6010.3 (8.8–11.8)1.8780.913–3.865
SexMale12.6 (8.2–17.0)0.514
Female10.3 (8.3–12.3)
Disease extentLAPC16.8 (16.2–17.4)0.05110.465
MPC10.0 (9.0–11.0)1.3950.572–3.402
CA 19-9, U/mL≥37.010.0 (8.8–11.2)0.587
<37.016.7 (10.2–23.2)
Total bilirubin, mg/dL>1.29.7 (6.6–12.8)0.255
≤1.211.4 (8.2–14.6)
Albumin, g/dL≥3.310.6 (8.7–12.5)0.802
<3.39.9 (0.1–25.7)
sPD-L1, ng/mL≥4.68.0 (6.6–9.4)0.0032.7961.221–6.4000.015
<4.612.6 (9.1–16.1)1
NLR≥1.8310.0 (8.8–11.2)0.0064.8231.554–14.9710.006
<1.83Not reached1
PLR≥109.610.3 (8.4–12.2)0.1291.8550.729–4.7200.195
<109.617.1 (3.7–30.5)1

Abbreviations: LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; mOS = median overall survival; CI = confidence interval; and HR = hazard ratio.

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for overall survival. Abbreviations: LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; mOS = median overall survival; CI = confidence interval; and HR = hazard ratio. In patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer, only a low sPD-L1 level was an independent factor for prolonged OS in univariate and multivariate analyses (8.4 months in patients with high sPD-L1 vs. 10.2 months in patients with low sPD-L1, P = 0.028 for the univariate analysis, Fig. 1C; HR, 3.249, 95% CI, 1.302–8.108, P = 0.012 for the multivariate analysis).

Prediction of treatment response and the dynamics of sPD-L1 during chemotherapy

Among the 60 patients, blood samples were collected from all 60 patients at the time of initial diagnosis with unresectable pancreatic cancer, from 53 patients at the first response assessment time point, and from 25 patients at the time of disease progression. Three paired samples (collected at the diagnosis, first response assessment, and disease progression time points) were obtained from 25 patients. When we evaluated the role of sPD-L1 in predicting treatment response during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, the sPD-L1 levels at diagnosis (prechemotherapy) could not predict the best ORR in a univariate analysis (P = 1.000; Table 4). However, older age (≥60) (13/25 [52%] for older age vs. 9/35 [25.7%] for younger age, P = 0.037; HR, 4.858, 95% CI, 1.344–17.563, P = 0.016) and a decreased sPD-L1 level at the first response assessment time point (postchemotherapy) compared with the initial diagnosis time point (prechemotherapy) (5/24 [20.8%] for increased sPD-L1 vs. 14/29 [48.3%] for decreased sPD-L1, P = 0.038; HR, 4.267, 95% CI, 1.123–16.212, P = 0.033) were predictive factors for the achievement of a best overall response (CR + PR) during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy.
Table 4

Univariate and multivariate analyses of the overall response rate.

CharacteristicBest ORR (CR + PR)P-valueMultivariate analysis
AchievedNot achievedOR95% CI P-value
Age, years≥6013 (59.1)12 (31.6)0.03710.016
<609 (40.9)26 (68.4)4.8581.344–17.563
SexMale12 (54.5)21 (55.3)0.957
Female10 (45.5)17 (44.7)
Disease extentLAPC4 (18.2)10 (26.3)0.542
MPC18 (81.8)28 (73.7)
CA 19-9, U/mL≥37.016 (72.7)31 (81.6)0.423
<37.06 (27.3)7 (18.4)
Total bilirubin, mg/dL>1.25 (22.7)7 (18.4)0.688
≤1.217 (77.3)31 (81.6)
Albumin, g/dL≥3.321 (95.5)36 (94.7)1.000
<3.31 (4.5)2 (5.3)
sPD-L1, ng/mL≥4.63 (13.6)5 (13.2)1.000
<4.619 (86.4)33 (86.8)
Δ sPD-L1, ng/mL≥05 (26.3)19 (55.9)0.0384.2671.123–16.2120.033
(response-initial)<014 (73.7)15 (44.1)1
NLR≥1.8316 (72.7)30 (78.9)0.583
<1.836 (27.3)8 (21.1)
PLR≥109.616 (72.7)27 (71.1)0.890
<109.66 (27.3)11 (28.9)

Abbreviations: ORR = overall response rate; CR = complete response; PR = partial response; LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; Δ sPD-L1 = the difference in sPD-L1 levels between the first response assessment time point and time of initial diagnosis with unresectable pancreatic cancer; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; OR = odd ratio; and CI = confidence interval.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of the overall response rate. Abbreviations: ORR = overall response rate; CR = complete response; PR = partial response; LAPC = locally advanced pancreatic cancer; MPC = metastatic pancreatic cancer; CA 19-9 = cancer antigen 19-9; sPD-L1 = soluble programmed death-ligand 1; Δ sPD-L1 = the difference in sPD-L1 levels between the first response assessment time point and time of initial diagnosis with unresectable pancreatic cancer; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; OR = odd ratio; and CI = confidence interval. Similar results were observed in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Older age (10/16 [62.5%] for older age vs. 8/30 [26.7%] for younger age, P = 0.027; HR, 9.331, 95% CI, 1.644–52.950, P = 0.012) and decreased sPD-L1 after chemotherapy (3/17 [17.6%] for increased sPD-L1 vs. 12/23 [52.2%] for decreased sPD-L1, P = 0.046; HR, 8.172, 95% CI, 1.328–50.305, P = 0.023) were predictive factors for the achievement of a best overall response. When we compared the three paired samples, which were obtained at the diagnosis, first response assessment, and disease progression time points (n = 25) during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, sPD-L1 levels were decreased at the first response assessment time point compared to the time of diagnosis. However, this change was not statistically significant (median 2.0 ng/mL vs. 1.8 ng/mL; mean 2.6 ng/mL vs. 2.3 ng/mL, P = 0.254; Fig. 2A). The level of sPD-L1 at the time of disease progression was higher than that at the first response assessment time point, although this difference also failed to reach the level of statistical significance (median 1.8 ng/mL vs. 2.8 ng/mL; mean 2.3 ng/mL vs. 2.6 ng/mL, P = 0.394; total P = 0.436 among three paired samples; Fig. 2A).
Figure 2

Comparison of soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1) levels among pancreatic cancer patients during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. (A) Time of diagnosis vs. first response assessment time point vs. disease progression time point (mean 2.6 ng/mL vs. 2.3 ng/mL vs. 2.6 ng/mL, respectively, P = 0.436) (B) Time of diagnosis vs. first response assessment time point vs. disease progression time point in patients who achieved complete response or partial response during chemotherapy (mean 2.5 ng/mL vs. 1.9 ng/mL vs. 3.5 ng/mL, respectively, P = 0.006).

Comparison of soluble programmed death-ligand 1 (sPD-L1) levels among pancreatic cancer patients during FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. (A) Time of diagnosis vs. first response assessment time point vs. disease progression time point (mean 2.6 ng/mL vs. 2.3 ng/mL vs. 2.6 ng/mL, respectively, P = 0.436) (B) Time of diagnosis vs. first response assessment time point vs. disease progression time point in patients who achieved complete response or partial response during chemotherapy (mean 2.5 ng/mL vs. 1.9 ng/mL vs. 3.5 ng/mL, respectively, P = 0.006). In patients who achieved a CR or PR as their best response during chemotherapy, sPD-L1 levels tended to be decreased at the first response assessment time point compared with the time of diagnosis, although this difference was not statistically significant (n = 10; median 1.7 ng/mL vs. 1.3 ng/mL; mean 2.5 ng/mL vs. 1.9 ng/mL, P = 0.331; Fig. 2B). However, the level of sPD-L1 was significantly increased at the time of disease progression compared with the first response assessment time point (n = 10; median 1.3 vs. 3.9 ng/mL; mean 1.9 ng/mL vs. 3.5 ng/mL, P = 0.025; total P = 0.006 among three paired samples; Fig. 2B).

Discussion

In this study, pancreatic cancer patients with high sPD-L1 levels at the time of diagnosis showed significantly worse OS than patients with low sPD-L1 levels despite identical FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy treatment. Furthermore, patients whose sPD-L1 levels decreased between the time of diagnosis (prechemotherapy) and the first response assessment time point showed better responses to FOLFIRINOX than those whose sPD-L1 levels increased after chemotherapy. Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy worldwide[17,18]. Although recent palliative chemotherapies have improved the median OS of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients up to 8.5–11.1 months, the efficacy of current treatment options is still very limited[19,20]. In the era of immunotherapy, large randomized clinical trials have reported promising outcomes in patients with various cancers, such as lung cancer, melanoma, and renal cell carcinoma[21-23]. However, in pancreatic cancer, clinical trials of anti-PD-L1 monotherapies have shown disappointing outcomes[13,24]. The reason for this failure could be partly explained by the nonimmunogenic tumor microenvironment of pancreatic cancer[25]. The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade has been related to the expression of PD-L1 by tumor cells and PD-1 by activated T cells. However, a previous study revealed that pancreatic cancer had low expression of both PD-1 and PD-L1[26]. In addition, although patients have high levels of PD-L1 expression, highly immunosuppressive microenvironment elements, such as regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and tumor-associated macrophages, might affect the unsuccessful treatment response to immunotherapy[25]. Due to its nonimmunogenic nature, pancreatic cancer has not yet been evaluated in a way that fully elucidates the prognostic role of PD-L1. It has been suggested that an immune checkpoint might not entirely represent the histopathological hallmarks of this malignancy[25,27]. However, several studies have reported a prognostic role for PD-L1. Tessier-Cloutier et al. demonstrated that increased PD-L1 expression (>10%) detected by immunohistochemistry was associated with poor disease-specific survival in resected pancreatic cancer patients (median 0.61 years vs. 1.52 years, P = 0.027)[11]. Yamaki et al. revealed that PD-L1-positive patients showed worse OS than PD-L1-negative patients who underwent surgical resection (HR, 2.07, 95% CI, 1.00–4.54; P = 0.049)[12]. However, in an analysis using sPD-L1, Kruger et al. reported that sPD-L1 did not predict adverse outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (11.92 months for high sPD-L1-expressing patients vs. 9.53 months for low sPD-L1-expressing patients, P = 0.36). They found that the levels of sPD-L1 were increased in patients with elevated C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.001), suggesting that sPD-L1 could be a marker of systemic inflammation in advanced pancreatic cancer[28]. In this study, we also demonstrated the dynamics of sPD-L1 during homogenous FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. sPD-L1 levels at the first response assessment time points were lower than those at the time of diagnosis. sPD-L1 levels were also higher at the disease progression time point than at the first response assessment time point. Although this study did not achieve statistical significance due to the small sample size, the observed changes in the sPD-L1 levels according to disease status were clinically important. In patients who achieved a CR or PR as their overall response, the sPDL1 levels were significantly increased at the disease progression time point compared to the first response assessment time point. Therefore, dynamic changes in sPD-L1 levels during chemotherapy correlated with disease progression. Although inflammatory markers such as the NLR and PLR did not correlate with sPD-L1 levels in our study, elevated NLR levels were associated with poor OS. This finding was in accordance with the results of previous studies that showed a relationship between increased systemic inflammation and poor outcomes in pancreatic cancer[29,30]. The present study has several limitations. It was a single-center study, and the sample size was small. Therefore, further large-scale studies are needed to confirm our results. We enrolled only advanced-stage pancreatic cancer patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy as a palliative first-line treatment to focus on a relatively homogeneous population. Patients who received other standard of care treatments, such as gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy or gemcitabine monotherapy, were excluded. A study of pancreatic cancer patients treated with these standard regimens is warranted to further support our conclusion for advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite these limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to show the dynamics of sPD-L1 levels in unresectable pancreatic cancer patients treated with homogenous FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. This study provides evidence that the prechemotherapy sPD-L1 level could be a prognostic factor for OS and that the dynamics of sPD-L1 levels during chemotherapy could predict treatment responses. In routine clinical practice, sPD-L1 measurement in patient blood samples could be easily incorporated. However, the standardization of this measurement should be further validated beforehand.

Conclusions

In conclusion, pretreatment sPD-L1 levels play a significant role in predicting survival outcomes in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy. Additionally, the dynamics of sPD-L1 levels during chemotherapy could be used to predict the best treatment response during chemotherapy.
  30 in total

1.  Serum levels of soluble programmed death protein 1 (sPD-1) and soluble programmed death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Stephan Kruger; Marie-Louise Legenstein; Verena Rösgen; Michael Haas; Dominik Paul Modest; Christoph Benedikt Westphalen; Steffen Ormanns; Thomas Kirchner; Volker Heinemann; Stefan Holdenrieder; Stefan Boeck
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 8.110

2.  FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Systemic and local immunosuppression in pancreatic cancer patients.

Authors:  W von Bernstorff; M Voss; S Freichel; A Schmid; I Vogel; C Jöhnk; D Henne-Bruns; B Kremer; H Kalthoff
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 12.531

4.  High plasma levels of soluble programmed cell death ligand 1 are prognostic for reduced survival in advanced lung cancer.

Authors:  Yusuke Okuma; Yukio Hosomi; Yoshiro Nakahara; Kageaki Watanabe; Yukiko Sagawa; Sadamu Homma
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.705

Review 5.  Prognostic Role of PD-L1 Expression in Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Roberto Iacovelli; Franco Nolè; Elena Verri; Giuseppe Renne; Chiara Paglino; Matteo Santoni; Maria Cossu Rocca; Palma Giglione; Gaetano Aurilio; Daniela Cullurà; Stefano Cascinu; Camillo Porta
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.493

6.  Clinical significance and therapeutic potential of the programmed death-1 ligand/programmed death-1 pathway in human pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Takeo Nomi; Masayuki Sho; Takahiro Akahori; Kaoru Hamada; Atsushi Kubo; Hiromichi Kanehiro; Shinji Nakamura; Koji Enomoto; Hideo Yagita; Miyuki Azuma; Yoshiyuki Nakajima
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-04-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Donghui Li; Keping Xie; Robert Wolff; James L Abbruzzese
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-03-27       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Robert J Motzer; Bernard Escudier; David F McDermott; Saby George; Hans J Hammers; Sandhya Srinivas; Scott S Tykodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Giuseppe Procopio; Elizabeth R Plimack; Daniel Castellano; Toni K Choueiri; Howard Gurney; Frede Donskov; Petri Bono; John Wagstaff; Thomas C Gauler; Takeshi Ueda; Yoshihiko Tomita; Fabio A Schutz; Christian Kollmannsberger; James Larkin; Alain Ravaud; Jason S Simon; Li-An Xu; Ian M Waxman; Padmanee Sharma
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

Authors:  Antoni Ribas; Igor Puzanov; Reinhard Dummer; Dirk Schadendorf; Omid Hamid; Caroline Robert; F Stephen Hodi; Jacob Schachter; Anna C Pavlick; Karl D Lewis; Lee D Cranmer; Christian U Blank; Steven J O'Day; Paolo A Ascierto; April K S Salama; Kim A Margolin; Carmen Loquai; Thomas K Eigentler; Tara C Gangadhar; Matteo S Carlino; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Stergios J Moschos; Jeffrey A Sosman; Simone M Goldinger; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Rene Gonzalez; John M Kirkwood; Jedd D Wolchok; Alexander Eggermont; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Wei Zhou; Adriane M Zernhelt; Joy Lis; Scot Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  High PD-L1 expression is associated with stage IV disease and poorer overall survival in 186 cases of small cell lung cancers.

Authors:  Yih-Leong Chang; Ching-Yao Yang; Yen-Lin Huang; Chen-Tu Wu; Pan-Chyr Yang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-03-14
View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  PD-1/PD-L1 expression in pancreatic cancer and its implication in novel therapies.

Authors:  Adrian Mucileanu; Romeo Chira; Petru Adrian Mircea
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2021-10-30

2.  Anticipating metastasis through electrochemical immunosensing of tumor hypoxia biomarkers.

Authors:  Cristina Muñoz-San Martín; Maria Gamella; María Pedrero; Ana Montero-Calle; Víctor Pérez-Ginés; Jordi Camps; Meritxell Arenas; Rodrigo Barderas; José M Pingarrón; Susana Campuzano
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.142

3.  Immune checkpoint expression on peripheral cytotoxic lymphocytes in cervical cancer patients: moving beyond the PD-1/PD-L1 axis.

Authors:  F Solorzano-Ibarra; A G Alejandre-Gonzalez; P C Ortiz-Lazareno; B E Bastidas-Ramirez; A Zepeda-Moreno; M C Tellez-Bañuelos; N Banu; O J Carrillo-Garibaldi; A Chavira-Alvarado; M R Bueno-Topete; S Del Toro-Arreola; J Haramati
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 5.732

4.  High Soluble Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Predicts Poor Prognosis in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Tianzhu Lu; Yiping Chen; Jieyu Li; Qiaojuan Guo; Wansong Lin; Yuhong Zheng; Ying Su; Jingfeng Zong; Shaojun Lin; Yunbin Ye; Jianji Pan
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  The Match between Molecular Subtypes, Histology and Microenvironment of Pancreatic Cancer and Its Relevance for Chemoresistance.

Authors:  Javier Martinez-Useros; Mario Martin-Galan; Jesus Garcia-Foncillas
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Prognostic Value of Serum Soluble Programmed Death-Ligand 1 and Dynamics During Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Woochan Park; Ju-Hee Bang; Ah-Rong Nam; Mei Hua Jin; Hyerim Seo; Jae-Min Kim; Kyoung Seok Oh; Tae-Yong Kim; Do-Youn Oh
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 4.679

7.  Soluble forms of PD-L1 and PD-1 as prognostic and predictive markers of sunitinib efficacy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Christopher Montemagno; Anais Hagege; Delphine Borchiellini; Brice Thamphya; Olivia Rastoin; Damien Ambrosetti; Juan Iovanna; Nathalie Rioux-Leclercq; Camillio Porta; Sylvie Negrier; Jean-Marc Ferrero; Emmanuel Chamorey; Gilles Pagès; Maeva Dufies
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 8.110

8.  The Prognostic Value of Circulating Soluble Programmed Death Ligand-1 in Cancers: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pei Huang; Wei Hu; Ying Zhu; Yushen Wu; Huapeng Lin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Levels of Circulating PD-L1 Are Decreased in Patients with Resectable Cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Christoph Roderburg; Sven H Loosen; Jan Bednarsch; Patrick H Alizai; Anjali A Roeth; Sophia M Schmitz; Mihael Vucur; Mark Luedde; Pia Paffenholz; Frank Tacke; Christian Trautwein; Tom F Ulmer; Ulf Peter Neumann; Tom Luedde
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  High serum PD-L1 level is a poor prognostic biomarker in surgically treated esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Masaaki Ito; Satoshi Yajima; Takashi Suzuki; Yoko Oshima; Tatsuki Nanami; Makoto Sumazaki; Fumiaki Shiratori; Kimihiko Funahashi; Naobumi Tochigi; Hideaki Shimada
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-12-21       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.