Tumor microenvironment predicts local tumor extensiveness in PD-L1 positive nasopharyngeal cancer.

Tumor microenvironment have been implicated in many kind of cancers to hold an important role in determining treatment success especially with immunotherapy. In nasopharyngeal cancer, the prognostic role of this immune cells within tumor microenvironment is still doubtful. We conducted a study that included 25 nasopharyngeal cancer biopsy specimens to seek a more direct relationship between tumor infiltrating immune cells and tumor progression. Apart from that, we also checked the PD-L1 protein through immunohistochemistry. The PD-L1 was positively expressed in all our 25 samples with nasopharyngeal cancer WHO type 3 histology. Majority samples have >50% PD-L1 expression in tumor cells. We also found that denser local tumor infiltrating immune cells population have relatively much smaller local tumor volume. The inverse applied, with the mean local tumor volumes were 181.92 cm3 ± 81.45 cm3, 117.13 cm3 ± 88.72 cm3, and 55.13 cm3 ± 25.06 cm3 for mild, moderate, and heavy immune cells infiltration respectively (p = 0.013). Therefore, we concluded that tumor infiltrating immune cells play an important role in tumor progression, hence evaluating this simple and predictive factor may provide us with some valuable prognostic information.

Introduction

The ability of mutated cells to escape immune recognition is one of the major mechanism of tumor cells to become malignant. It takes many years from a precancerous lesion to transform into cancerous lesion. Multiple ongoing and continuous mutations eventually drive some clones of mutated cells to acquire the ability to escape immune recognition. The tumor cells able to escape immune surveillance by various mechanism. One of the mechanism of immune escape by tumor cells that is well studied is through expression of various immune checkpoint molecules. The interplay between the presence of various immune checkpoint molecules between host immune cells and tumor cells result in downplay of inflammatory signals.[1]

Nasopharyngeal cancer, which is tightly related with Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) infection, has a distinct way from escaping immune surveillance. There are various viral products expressed in host cells that resulted in expansion of immunosuppressive cells, evasion of immune recognition by host major histocompatibility complex, and downregulation of various pro-inflammatory cytokines.[2-5] Apart from that, EBV viral proteins have also been implicated in upregulation of immune checkpoint molecule such as Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1).[6] The expression of PD-L1 results in further downplay of immune attack, thereby it facilitates resistance free tumor progression.

Immune cells within the milieu of cancer cells have been shown to be associated with patient’s prognosis in various types of cancer.[7-9] Various evidence suggesting a better prognosis in a rich infiltrating lymphocytes tumor microenvironment in nasopharyngeal cancer.[10,11] However, there are also various reports suggesting a doubtful to a non-prognostic role of immune cells within nasopharyngeal tumor microenvironment.[12-14] Due to this conflicting evidence observed in nasopharyngeal cancer, there is a need to study the role of tumor infiltrating immune cells in a more straight forward manner with a more direct endpoint, thus eliminating many other confounding factors. In this study, we reported the relationship between local tumor infiltrating immune cells and local tumor volume.

Method

Patients selection and recruitment

Twenty-five microscopically confirmed nasopharyngeal cancer patients were recruited consecutively from April to October 2019 from ENT oncology clinic in Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta. All patients were aged 18 and above. They all gave written consent to participate in this study. All patients underwent pathological reconfirmation by a senior pathologist and pre-treatment imaging. The pre-treatment imaging to asses local and regional tumor extension was either nasopharyngeal CT Scan or MRI Scan with scan area from at least the level of frontal sinus until supraclavicular. Chest X-Ray, bone scan, and abdominal ultrasound were conducted to assess metastatic disease. In case of doubtful lesion, additional imaging such as thoracic CT-Scan or abdominal CT-Scan or MRI was carried out for confirmation. All patients enrolled in this study did not have any prior cancer treatment. They also did not have any other severe diseases such hematological diseases or infectious diseases. They all had a routine peripheral blood count checked within a week prior from nasopharyngeal biopsy.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and evaluation

The process of PD-L1 IHC staining was performed in the Laboratory of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia. The paraffin embedded tissue of those confirmed NPC patients were cut until thickness of 3 μm. It was then deparaffinized with Xylol, rehydrated with alcohol 100%, 96%, and 70%. The slides were then pre-treated with Tris-EDTA on pH 9 in decloaking chamber at 94°C. It was further rinsed with Phosphate Buffer Saline (PBS), then stained with primary immunohistochemistry PD-L1 antibody (GeneTex: GTX104763). After stained with primary antibody, it was re-rinsed with PBS and counterstained with hematoxylin stain. Next, lithium carbonate solution was applied to the slides, then the slides were rehydrated again in alcohol 80%, 96%, and 100%. The stained was then cleared with xylol again and finally they were covered with glass slides.

Evaluation of PD-L1 staining was carried out based on the percentage of tumor cells that was stained positive on its cytomembrane. The percentage of positively stained tumor cells was then categorized into 5 scores, with score 0: ≤ 5%; score 1: 6 ≤ 25%; score 2: 26 to ≤ 50%; score 3: >50% of PD-L1 positivity in tumor cells. The intensity of staining was not scored. Any intensity of staining as long as presence was calculated as positive stained cells. All the stained slides of PD-L1 IHC were evaluated until at least 10 fields of 400 times microscopic magnification independently by two different pathologists. In case of different scoring results by two pathologists, a consensus on final scoring was made after thorough review done together.

Tumor microenvironment evaluation

Tumor microenvironment in the context of this study was defined as tumor infiltrating immune cells. It included all kind of immune cells. The evaluation of tumor infiltrating immune cells was based on a thin cut of a 3 μm paraffin embedded tissue biopsy specimen which was stained with hematoxylin eosin (HE) dye. The HE stained slides were evaluated for presence of nasopharyngeal cancer cells. Then the infiltrating immune cells surrounding the tumor cells were evaluated in 10 different representative fields under a 400 times magnification microscope independently by two different pathologists. The similar method as carried out in evaluation of IHC scoring was used in case of differences in initial independent scoring evaluation. The infiltrating immune cells for each patient’s biopsy specimen were categorized and scored into 3 scores (1 = mild infiltration, 2 = moderate infiltration, 3 = heavy infiltration).

Tumor volume determination

Tumor volume was determined based pre-treatment 3D imaging, from either nasopharyngeal CT scan or MRI scan with contrast. The selected imaging was the one nearest to the date of nasopharyngeal tumor biopsy, with none more than 2 months apart. The tumor volume was determined by delineating the tumor in EclipseTM treatment planning system by 2 different radiation oncologists. The contours were done separately for local or primary tumor volume and nodal tumor volume from each patient. The final tumor contours were decided by consensus between those 2 radiation oncologists, then the tumor volumes were recorded.

Statistical analysis

There were 3 groups of results which was stratified based on tumor infiltrating immune cells. The descriptive statistical analysis was done for all 3 groups. The figure following ± was denoted as standard deviation in this article, unless stated differently. The ANOVA statistical test was used to compare the means of those 3 groups. A p value of less than 0.05 was determined as statistical significance. The statistical test was carried out with SPSS software version 25.0.

Result

Patients and samples characteristics

Twenty-five nasopharyngeal cancer patients were recruited. There were 5 (20%), 11 (44%), and 9 (36%) patients in mild, moderate, and heavy tumor infiltrating immune cells category, respectively. The H&E samples of different scores of tumor infiltrating immune cells were found in . There was almost equal number of patients between age ≤50 years old and >50 years old among the whole group. There were more males 19 (76%) than female in the whole group. The majority of patient was in stage IVA locally advanced stage. (see ) All patients had nasopharyngeal carcinoma WHO type 3 histology.

Histopathology slide stained with Hematoxylin Eosin dye in 400 times magnification showing density of tumor infiltrating immune cells nearby tumor cells in nasopharyngeal cancer a) score 1 = mild infiltration; b) score 2 = moderate infiltration; c) score 3 = heavy infiltration.

All 25 biopsy samples were positively stained with IHC PD-L1 antibody. There was no sample with IHC PD-L1 score of 0 or <5% positivity of cytomembranic PD-L1 staining. All samples from the whole group had at least above 6% positivity of cytomembranic PD-L1 staining, with majority had more than 50% positivity in PD-L1 staining. There were 2, 8, and 15 samples with IHC PD-L1 score of 1, 2, and 3 respectively. However, there was no relationship found between positivity of PD-L1 cytomembranic staining with tumor infiltrating immune cells scores in our samples. Several samples of different IHC PD-L1 staining were found in .

PD-L1 immunohistochemistry staining in 400 times magnification in nasopharyngeal cancer specimen a) Negative Control slide–no PD-L1 staining was observed on tumor cells; b) IHC PD-L1 in tumor cytomembranic cells—Score 1; c) IHC PD-L1 in tumor cytomembranic cells—Score 2; d) IHC PD-L1 in tumor cytomembranic cells—Score 3.

Relationship between tumor volume, tumor infiltrating immune cells and systemic immune cells

There was an inverse relationship between local tumor infiltrating immune cells and local tumor volume. The mean local tumor volumes for each local tumor infiltrating immune cells score group were 181.92 cm3 ± 81.45 cm3, 117.13 cm3 ± 88.72 cm3, and 55.13 cm3 ± 25.06 cm3 for mild, moderate, and heavy infiltration score respectively (p = 0.013). In relatively larger local tumor volume patients, the tumor infiltrating immune cells were found to be sparser. The inverse was true with smaller local tumor volume patients having a denser tumor infiltrating immune cells. See .

There was no relationship exist between local tumor infiltrating immune cells with nodal tumor volume and systemic immune cells. The mean nodal tumor volumes for each local tumor infiltrating immune cells score group were 56.76 cm3 ± 39.67 cm3, 104.71 cm3 ± 163.29 cm3, and 92.50 cm3 ± 162.27 cm3 for mild, moderate, and heavy infiltration score respectively (p = 0.838). The mean systemic leukocyte counts for those 3 group of patients segregated based on local tumor infiltrating immune cells score from 1 to 3 were 9,670 cells/μl ± 3,520 cells/μl, 9,210 cells/μl ± 2,341 cells/μl, and 8,885 cells/μl ± 3,440 cells/μl, respectively (p = 0.896). There was also no relationship exist between all the leukocyte subtypes from basophil, eosinophil, neutrophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte among all the 3 groups of patients that were segregated based on local tumor infiltrating immune cells score.

Discussion

The PD-L1 positivity in nasopharyngeal cancer is common especially for those with EBV infection or WHO type 3 undifferentiated carcinoma histology.[13] The high expression of PD-L1 in nasopharyngeal cancer has been shown in some studies to confer favorable prognosis to overall survival or progression free survival.[12,15] Nevertheless, there were also multiple studies shown that PD-L1 expression was not prognostic[12,13] or even conferred negative prognosis[16-19] in nasopharyngeal cancer. A recent meta-analysis confirmed that there was conflicting results for the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in nasopharyngeal cancer.[20]

There were various factors that might affect the conflicting evidence of this prognostic role of PD-L1 in nasopharyngeal cancer. The antibody assay to assess the PD-L1 expression and the scoring method to evaluate extensiveness of PD-L1 expression were very variable.[21] The endpoint measured such as overall survival and disease free survival were indeed an important measure of prognosis, however, those endpoints were affected by too many other factors. Probably, it would be necessary to look at a smaller scope and a more direct relationship for instance PD-L1 expression and the local tumor microenvironment, among other factors. Tumor microenvironment has been shown to be an important determinant of treatment success, thus affecting patient’s prognosis.[10,22]

In a complex and heterogeneous tumor, where the tumors were constantly evolving, the dynamic interaction between host immune cells and tumor cells were important. The PD-L1 expression in the primary tumor site could be different with the PD-L1 expression in other sites such as metastatic sites due to different local microenvironment.[23] In order to better determine prognosis, a single biomarker such as PD-L1 may not be sufficient. A combination of multiple factors including patient’s characteristics, tumor microenvironment, and possibly some other genomic or molecular parameters would better predict prognosis and guide better treatment options.

In our study, we showed that local tumor infiltrating immune cells was prognostic for predicting local tumor extensiveness. We assessed the whole infiltrating immune cells, instead of just specific immune cells because all kind of immune cells play an important and integral role in tumor resistance by immune cells. Immune cells were composed of components of innate immunity and adaptive immunity, which together are required to elicit a full blown immune response. Adaptive immunity such as T cells with all its subsets have been known to play a major and critical role in resisting cancer cells growth by exerting direct cytotoxic effects.[24] However, T cells alone were not enough to suppress tumor growth, all the other components of innate immunity were required to assist in recognizing, recruiting, activating, and enhancing the effect of cytotoxic T cells.[25]

Components of innate immunity such as neutrophils, NK cells, dendritic cells, macrophages, and all the cytokines produced by those cells have been shown to hold an important role in cancer immunotherapy.[10,22,25-30] A recent study of tumor infiltrating neutrophils in colorectal cancer patients indicated a higher density of neutrophils surrounding the tumor cells was associated with better overall prognosis and better response toward chemotherapy.[27] All those evidence suggesting that evaluating the whole tumor infiltrating immune cells might have an important role in predicting patient’s prognosis and selecting the treatment especially the novel immunotherapy.

Although local tumor infiltrating immune cells was only predictive for local tumor extensiveness only, it might still hold a role in predicting overall patient’s prognosis if various other potentially prognostic factors were incorporated. This study also pointed out that utilizing a quite simple and inexpensive method of evaluating overall tumor infiltrating immune cells might also work. This method might serve as the basis for reporting tumor infiltrating immune cells in other trials. Furthermore, this finding could trigger further exploratory work on tumor and immune cells interaction, especially for nasopharyngeal cancer.

In case of systemic immune cells, this study did not find any relationship among different scores of local tumor infiltrating immune cells from various systemic immune cells indices. This implied that the number of circulating systemic immune cells was not directly related to density of local tumor infiltrating immune cells. There were data indicating that failure of immune cells trafficked to tumor microenvironment led to failure of treatment including immunotherapy.[31] Nevertheless, there were studies reported prognostic role of circulating lymphocyte and neutrophil to immunotherapy response.[32,33] Therefore, a more thorough understanding is required to study and explore the role of systemic immune cells in affecting treatment response and finding ways to potentially increase T cells homing to tumor microenvironment.

Conclusion

The local tumor infiltrating immune cells were related to local tumor extensiveness in PD-L1 positive nasopharyngeal cancer patients, with denser infiltration resulted in smaller local tumor volume. Evaluating overall tumor infiltrating immune cells might be important and could serve as a simple and predictive marker for determining prognosis and possibly guiding treatment.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-33450

Tumor Microenvironment Predicts Local Tumor Extensiveness in PD-L1 Positive Nasopharyngeal Cancer

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Handoko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you can see, both reviewers have made suggestions for minor changes to the manuscript.  We would request your consideration of these changes.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Salvatore V Pizzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors under age 18, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors found that the PD-L1 was highly expressed in 25 NPC samples. They also revealed that denser local tumor infiltrating immune cells population have relatively much small local tumor volume. Thus, tumor infiltrating immune cells play an important role in tumor progression. The detection of tumor infiltrating immune cells may offer valuable prognostic information for NPC. This manuscript is well-written and the figures are well-presented. I only have one comment. I wonder if these NPC patents are receiving chemotherapy during this project. Chemotherapy or other therapies may have an impact on the distribution and density of tumor infiltrating immune cells. The authors should clarify this in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1.Local tumor volume can be measured by CT or MRI scan exactly. There is no need to "predict" it. In this research the authors indicated the relationship between tumor volume and its microenviroment, changing the title into, for example, "Tumor microenvironment charactaristics in different tumor extensiveness in PD-L1 positive nasopharyngeal cancer" would more appropriate.

2.Did the enrolled patients received any treatment before biopsy? Medical treatment can influence the tumor progression and its microenviroment and further affect the final results.

3.In line 153

Did the enrolled patients have any hematological disease or infectious complications when taking peripheral blood count? These factors can affect the peripheral blood components and authors should illuminate this.

4.In line 174

It may be insufficient to use HE dye to evaluate tumor infiltrating immune cells level because it is too subjective. CD45 is widely expressed in all kinds of immune cells, so I suggest that CD45 staining is need to help evaluating the infiltrating level.

5.In line 187

"imaging selected" means "selected imaging" ?

6.PD-L1 is an important immunosupression molecular. So what is the relationship between PD-L1 expression and tumor infiltrating immune cells? In other kinds of cancers, PD-L1 often has higher expression in "hot tumor".

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Feb 2020

Reviewer #1:

In this manuscript, the authors found that the PD-L1 was highly expressed in 25 NPC samples. They also revealed that denser local tumor infiltrating immune cells population have relatively much small local tumor volume. Thus, tumor infiltrating immune cells play an important role in tumor progression. The detection of tumor infiltrating immune cells may offer valuable prognostic information for NPC. This manuscript is well-written and the figures are well-presented. I only have one comment. I wonder if these NPC patents are receiving chemotherapy during this project. Chemotherapy or other therapies may have an impact on the distribution and density of tumor infiltrating immune cells. The authors should clarify this in the manuscript.

Thank you for the comment. The answer was no. All subjects included in this study did not have any prior cancer treatment. It’s true that some systemic treatments might impact tumor microenvironment. Thank you for pointing it out for us, now in our revised manuscript we have added a statement clarifying that issue.

Reviewer #2:

1.Local tumor volume can be measured by CT or MRI scan exactly. There is no need to "predict" it. In this research the authors indicated the relationship between tumor volume and its microenviroment, changing the title into, for example, "Tumor microenvironment charactaristics in different tumor extensiveness in PD-L1 positive nasopharyngeal cancer" would more appropriate.

Thank you for the comment and suggestion. Yes it is true that we can obtain exact tumor volume by CR or MRI scan. Your suggestion “Tumor microenvironment characteristics in different tumor extensiveness in PD-L1 positive nasopharyngeal cancer" was great, however, the term “in different tumor extensiveness” could be connoted by some people as different disease stages. While actually in our study we used exact tumor volume.

We used “predict” because we wanted to give the readers an upfront impression that tumor microenvironment has prognostic role when just glancing at our title. We refereed “predict” here as predicting role of tumor microenvironment. Therefore, we actually tend to stick to our original title. But we are still open to discussion if you have any other comments or ideas.

2.Did the enrolled patients received any treatment before biopsy? Medical treatment can influence the tumor progression and its microenviroment and further affect the final results.

No, all patients did not receive any prior treatment. We have revised and included a clear statement in our revised manuscript that all subjects enrolled in our study did not ever received any kind of treatment before.

3.In line 153

Did the enrolled patients have any hematological disease or infectious complications when taking peripheral blood count? These factors can affect the peripheral blood components and authors should illuminate this.

No, all patients enrolled did not have any hematological disease nor infections. The routine peripheral blood checks was part of our institution protocol. All patients would have the blood checked before biopsy and every week during treatment. Furthermore, the patient would not be biopsied if they had any kind of infection. We have also included a statement in our revised manuscript stating that all patients enrolled did not have any other severe diseases such hematological diseases or infectious diseases.

4.In line 174

It may be insufficient to use HE dye to evaluate tumor infiltrating immune cells level because it is too subjective. CD45 is widely expressed in all kinds of immune cells, so I suggest that CD45 staining is need to help evaluating the infiltrating level.

Yes, we were aware about the subjectivity. Therefore, we have actually made a precautionary step by having 2 independent pathologists blindly reviewing the HE slides. Nevertheless, we are very happy with your suggestion. Next time we will add CD45 staining to help us tackle this subjectivity issue.

5.In line 187

"imaging selected" means "selected imaging" ?

Yes, we meant selected imaging. We have revised it in our revised manuscript. Thanks for point it out for us.

6.PD-L1 is an important immunosupression molecular. So what is the relationship between PD-L1 expression and tumor infiltrating immune cells? In other kinds of cancers, PD-L1 often has higher expression in "hot tumor".

There was no relationship found between PD-L1 expression and tumor infiltrating immune cells in our study. We were aware that some tumor did have relationship exist between those two. We have added a statement in our revised manuscript describing the absence of relationship between PD-L1 and tumor infiltrating immune cells in our NPC samples.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Mar 2020

Tumor Microenvironment Predicts Local Tumor Extensiveness in PD-L1 Positive Nasopharyngeal Cancer

PONE-D-19-33450R1

Dear Dr. Handoko,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Salvatore V Pizzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have well addressed all my comments in the revised version of the manuscript. I have no further comment.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

6 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-33450R1

Tumor Microenvironment Predicts Local Tumor Extensiveness in PD-L1 Positive Nasopharyngeal Cancer

Dear Dr. No Last Name:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Salvatore V Pizzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Patient’s characteristics segregated based on tumor infiltrating immune cells density score.

	Number of patients based on tumor infiltrating immune cells density score (percentage of total)
Variables	Mild	Moderate	Heavy	Total
Age
≤50 years old	2 (8%)	6 (24%)	5 (20%)	13 (52%)
>50 years old	3 (12%)	5 (20%)	4 (16%)	12 (48%)
Gender
Male	3 (12%)	10 (40%)	6 (24%)	19 (76%)
Female	2 (8%)	1 (4%)	3 (12%)	6 (24%)
Stadium
III	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	2 (8%)	4 (16%)
IVA	1 (4%)	7 (28%)	5 (20%)	13 (52%)
IVB	4 (16%)	2 (8%)	2 (8%)	8 (32%)
Total	5 (20%)	11 (44%)	9 (36%)	25 (100%)