| Literature DB >> 31881008 |
Changjiang Lei1, Xiulan Peng2, Xiaojun Gong1, Ying Fan3, Shenglin Wu4, Ning Liu1, Lei Li1, Jianbin Huang1, Gang Zheng1, Zhixiong Long2.
Abstract
Previous studies investigated the prognostic role of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC); however, the results remained controversial. Therefore, we conducted the current meta-analysis with the aim of clarifying the association between PD-L1 expression and prognosis as well as with several important clinicopathological features of BTC. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant studies. Studies that detected PD-L1 expression in tumor cells by using immunohistochemistry (IHC) were selected. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the correlations. In total, 15 independent studies with 1,776 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data demonstrated that high PD-L1 expression was associated with poor overall survival (n=15, HR=1.79, 95% CI=1.55-2.07, p<0.001). The correlation between PD-L1 expression and disease-free survival was not significant (n=6, HR=1.38, 95% CI=1.00-1.91, p=0.051). In addition, no significant correlation was observed between PD-L1 expression and clinical features in patients with BTC. Our study results showed that PD-L1 expression could play a pivotal role as an effective factor of poor prognosis in patients with BTC.Entities:
Keywords: PD-L1; biliary tract cancer; meta-analysis; survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31881008 PMCID: PMC6949100 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Figure 1Flow chart of literature search and study selection.
Baseline characteristics of eligible studies for this meta-analysis.
| Tamai | 2014 | 91 | Japan | eCCA | 2000-2008 | NA | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | Moderate or intense staining | OS | 6 |
| Gani | 2016 | 54 | USA | iCCA | 1991-2011 | Mean: 64 | Caucasian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >5% tumor cells | OS | 8 |
| Ma | 2017 | 70 | China | eCCA | 2009-2013 | Mean: 62.5 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >50% tumor cells | OS | 8 |
| Sangkhamanon | 2017 | 46 | Thailand | iCCA, eCCA | NA | Median: 57.5 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >1% tumor cells | OS | 6 |
| Walter | 2017 | 69 | Germany | eCCA | 2007-2015 | NA | Caucasian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | Score 3 | OS | 6 |
| Kim | 2018 | 34 | USA | eCCA | 1990-2015 | Median: 67 | Caucasian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >1% tumor cells | OS, DFS | 8 |
| Lin | 2018 | 66 | China | GBC | 2009-2014 | Median: 65 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >5% tumor cells | OS, DFS | 8 |
| Ueno | 2018 | 117 | Japan | eCCA | 1995-2006 | Median: 71 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | Score 2 | OS | 8 |
| Zhu | 2018 | 192 | China | iCCA | NA | NA | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >5% tumor cells | OS, DFS | 7 |
| Ahn | 2019 | 183 | Korea | eCCA | 2003-2013 | Median: 68 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >1% tumor cells | OS, DFS | 8 |
| Dong | 2019 | 125 | China | iCCA | 2012-2013 | Mean: 49 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >5% tumor cells | OS, DFS | 7 |
| Kitano | 2019 | 177 | Japan | iCCA, eCCA | 2005-2014 | NA | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >25% tumor cells | OS | 7 |
| Kriegsmann | 2019 | 170 | Germany | iCCA, eCCA | 1995-2010 | Median: 63 | Caucasian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >1% tumor cells | OS | 8 |
| Lu | 2019 | 320 | China | iCCA | 2005-2011 | Median: 58 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | >5% tumor cells | OS | 8 |
| Yu | 2019 | 62 | China | eCCA | 2015-2017 | Mean: 60.8 | Asian | Tissue | IHC | Surgical resection | Score 3 | OS, DFS | 8 |
NA, not available; iCCA, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; eCCA, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; GBC, gallbladder cancer; IHC, immunohistochemistry; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Subgroup analyses of OS and DFS based on different factors.
| OS | Total | 15 | Fixed | 1.79 (1.55-2.07) | <0.001 | 25.9 | 0.167 | |
| Tumor type | 0.820 | |||||||
| eCCA | 7 | Random | 1.73 (1.08-2.75) | 0.022 | 62.7 | 0.013 | ||
| iCCA | 4 | Fixed | 1.79 (1.42-2.25) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.718 | ||
| iCCA+eCCA | 3 | Fixed | 1.82 (1.38-2.40) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.508 | ||
| GBC | 1 | - | 1.92 (0.95-3.88) | 0.069 | - | - | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.783 | |||||||
| Asian | 11 | Fixed | 1.77 (1.51-2.07) | <0.001 | 43.5 | 0.06 | ||
| Caucasian | 4 | Fixed | 1.89 (1.34-2.67) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.787 | ||
| Sample size | 0.960 | |||||||
| <100 | 8 | Fixed | 1.80 (1.38-2.35) | <0.001 | 42 | 0.099 | ||
| ≥100 | 7 | Fixed | 1.78 (1.50-2.12) | <0.001 | 12 | 0.338 | ||
| Cut-off value | 0.166 | |||||||
| Cut-off value 5% | 5 | Fixed | 1.80 (1.45-2.24) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.847 | ||
| Cut-off value 1% | 4 | Fixed | 1.49 (1.12-1.98) | 0.001 | 0 | 0.917 | ||
| Other cut-off values | 6 | Random | 1.88 (1.14-3.10) | 0.014 | 65.0 | 0.014 | ||
| DFS | Total | 6 | Random | 1.38 (1.00-1.91) | 0.051 | 64 | 0.016 | |
| Tumor type | 0.271 | |||||||
| eCCA | 3 | Random | 0.97 (0.53-1.78) | 0.930 | 76 | 0.015 | ||
| GBC | 1 | - | 1.87 (0.95-3.68) | 0.070 | - | - | ||
| iCCA | 2 | Fixed | 1.76 (1.28-2.42) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.752 | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.365 | |||||||
| Asian | 5 | Random | 1.42 (0.93-2.18) | 0.108 | 63.6 | 0.027 | ||
| Caucasian | 1 | - | 1.18 (0.95-1.47) | 0.139 | - | - | ||
| Sample size | 0.288 | |||||||
| <100 | 3 | Random | 0.93 (0.40-2.16) | 0.869 | 78.8 | 0.009 | ||
| ≥100 | 3 | Fixed | 1.64 (1.27-2.13) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.724 | ||
| Cut-off value | 0.425 | |||||||
| Cut-off value 5% | 3 | Fixed | 1.78 (1.33-2.37) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.939 | ||
| Cut-off value 1% | 2 | Fixed | 1.22 (1.00-1.49) | 0.045 | 0 | 0.458 | ||
| Other cut-off values | 1 | - | 0.16 (0.04-0.65) | 0.011 | - | - | ||
iCCA, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; eCCA, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; GBC, gallbladder cancer; OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival.
Figure 2Forest plots for the association between PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS) categorized by different subgroups: (A) the entire patient group; (B) patients with eCCA, iCCA, iCCA+eCCA, or GBC; (C) patients with Asian ethnicity or Caucasian ethnicity; and (D) studies with sample size ≥100 or sample size <100. Note: The right-side means “High PD-L1 predicts poor survival” and the left-side means “High PD-L1 predicts better survival”.
Figure 3Forest plots for the association between PD-L1 expression and disease-free survival (DFS) categorized by different subgroups: (A) the entire patient group; (B) patients with eCCA, GBC, or iCCA; (C) patients with Asian ethnicity or Caucasian ethnicity; and (D) studies with sample size ≥100 or sample size <100. Note: The right-side means “High PD-L1 predicts poor survival” and the left-side means “High PD-L1 predicts better survival”.
Meta-analysis of PD-L1 expression and clinicopathological features in BTC patients.
| eCCA | Sex (male vs female) | 6 | Fixed | 1.09(0.69-1.72) | 0.710 | 0 | 0.826 |
| T stage (T3-T4 vs T1-T2) | 4 | Fixed | 0.80(0.43-1.50) | 0.492 | 0 | 0.515 | |
| N stage (N1 vs N0) | 6 | Fixed | 1.48(0.97-2.27) | 0.070 | 42.3 | 0.123 | |
| Grading (G3 vs G1+G2) | 3 | Fixed | 1.85(0.84-4.07) | 0.126 | 22.2 | 0.277 | |
| iCCA | Sex (male vs female) | 4 | Fixed | 1.11(0.71-1.73) | 0.651 | 0 | 0.931 |
| Tumor size (≥5cm vs <5cm) | 2 | Random | 0.73(0.18-2.98) | 0.661 | 80.3 | 0.024 | |
| N stage (N1 vs N0) | 4 | Random | 1.22(0.15-9.91) | 0.852 | 92.8 | <0.001 | |
| Vascular invasion (yes vs no) | 4 | Random | 3.24(0.75-14.00) | 0.116 | 82.4 | 0.001 | |
| Perineural invasion (yes vs no) | 3 | Fixed | 0.77(0.36-1.72) | 0.529 | 0 | 0.706 | |
| iCCA+eCCA | Sex (male vs female) | 2 | Fixed | 1.36(0.77-2.42) | 0.290 | 9.3 | 0.294 |
| T stage (T3-T4 vs T1-T2) | 2 | Fixed | 1.10(0.63-1.91) | 0.741 | 41.9 | 0.190 | |
| N stage (N1 vs N0) | 3 | Fixed | 1.46(0.85-2.52) | 0.174 | 0 | 0.586 | |
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis for the association between PD-L1 expression levels with BTC.
Figure 5Publication bias examination. (A) Begg’s funnel plots assessing the publication bias for OS (p=0.921); (B) Egger’s test assessing the publication bias for OS (p=0.581); (C) Begg’s funnel plots assessing the publication bias for DFS (p=0.452); and (D) Egger’s test assessing the publication bias for DFS (p=0. 0.826).