Kohei Yamashita1, Masaaki Iwatsuki1,2, Kazuto Harada1,2, Kojiro Eto1, Yukiharu Hiyoshi1, Takatsugu Ishimoto1, Yohei Nagai1, Shiro Iwagami1, Yuji Miyamoto1, Naoya Yoshida1, Yoshihiro Komohara3, Jaffer A Ajani2, Hideo Baba4. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. Department of Cell Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. hdobaba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The tumor proportion score (TPS) and combined positive score (CPS) have been developed to assess programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to elucidate the role of TPS and CPS as prognostic biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 191 patients with GC who received curative gastrectomy were retrospectively enrolled. Double immunohistochemistry of PD-L1 and ionized calcium binding adaptor molecule 1 was performed to clearly distinguish PD-L1 expression between tumor cells and macrophages. Survival analysis for PD-L1 expression by TPS and CPS was performed. RESULTS: PD-L1 positivity was detected in 39 patients (20.4%) by TPS and in 137 patients (71.7%) by CPS. Patients with PD-L1 positivity by CPS experienced significantly shorter overall survival (OS) (P < 0.01) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.01) than the other patients. In contrast, patients with either PD-L1 status by the TPS showed similar OS and RFS times. Multivariate Cox regression analysis for OS and RFS demonstrated that PD-L1 positivity by CPS was a significant independent factor for poor OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-4.37, P < 0.01) and RFS (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.22, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: CPS was shown to be a more useful assessment method of determining PD-L1 expression than TPS as a prognostic biomarker. This suggests that the total number of PD-L1-expressing cells, including tumor and immune cells, is a more sensitive prognostic biomarker than the number of PD-L1-expressing tumor cells in GC.
BACKGROUND: The tumor proportion score (TPS) and combined positive score (CPS) have been developed to assess programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to elucidate the role of TPS and CPS as prognostic biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 191 patients with GC who received curative gastrectomy were retrospectively enrolled. Double immunohistochemistry of PD-L1 and ionizedcalcium binding adaptor molecule 1 was performed to clearly distinguish PD-L1 expression between tumor cells and macrophages. Survival analysis for PD-L1 expression by TPS and CPS was performed. RESULTS:PD-L1 positivity was detected in 39 patients (20.4%) by TPS and in 137 patients (71.7%) by CPS. Patients with PD-L1 positivity by CPS experienced significantly shorter overall survival (OS) (P < 0.01) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.01) than the other patients. In contrast, patients with either PD-L1 status by the TPS showed similar OS and RFS times. Multivariate Cox regression analysis for OS and RFS demonstrated that PD-L1 positivity by CPS was a significant independent factor for poor OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-4.37, P < 0.01) and RFS (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07-3.22, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:CPS was shown to be a more useful assessment method of determining PD-L1 expression than TPS as a prognostic biomarker. This suggests that the total number of PD-L1-expressing cells, including tumor and immune cells, is a more sensitive prognostic biomarker than the number of PD-L1-expressing tumor cells in GC.
Authors: D Massi; D Brusa; B Merelli; C Falcone; G Xue; A Carobbio; R Nassini; G Baroni; E Tamborini; L Cattaneo; V Audrito; S Deaglio; M Mandalà Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Takuro Noguchi; Jeffrey P Ward; Matthew M Gubin; Cora D Arthur; Sang Hun Lee; Jasreet Hundal; Mark J Selby; Robert F Graziano; Elaine R Mardis; Alan J Korman; Robert D Schreiber Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Kazuto Harada; Xiaochuan Dong; Jeannelyn S Estrella; Arlene M Correa; Yan Xu; Wayne L Hofstetter; Kazuki Sudo; Hisashi Onodera; Koyu Suzuki; Akihiro Suzuki; Randy L Johnson; Zhenning Wang; Shumei Song; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Janet Lau; Jeanne Cheung; Armando Navarro; Steve Lianoglou; Benjamin Haley; Klara Totpal; Laura Sanders; Hartmut Koeppen; Patrick Caplazi; Jacqueline McBride; Henry Chiu; Rebecca Hong; Jane Grogan; Vincent Javinal; Robert Yauch; Bryan Irving; Marcia Belvin; Ira Mellman; Jeong M Kim; Maike Schmidt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Natalie Wolkow; Frederick A Jakobiec; Amir H Afrogheh; Sara I Pai; William C Faquin Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 5.488