Literature DB >> 32404957

Association of PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry and gene microarray with molecular subtypes of ovarian tumors.

Curtis David Chin1, Charlene Marie Fares2, Maira Campos2, Hsiao-Wang Chen2, Itsushi Peter Shintaku1, Gottfried Ewald Konecny3, Jianyu Rao4.   

Abstract

Identifying patients who respond to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a significant challenge in oncology. While PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the current diagnostic gold standard for patient selection, it nevertheless does not capture all patients who may respond to ICB. Recent gene expression studies in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma have defined an immunoreactive molecular subtype that has a measurable difference in patient survival compared with non-immunoreactive subtypes, but no studies have yet demonstrated its impact on predicting response to ICB. As a step toward establishing the predictive value of gene expression classifiers in ICB, we assessed the relationship between PD-L1 IHC and molecular subtypes of ovarian epithelial cancer. This was done by analyzing a total of 93 tissue specimens from patients with stage III and IV disease, and comparing PD-L1 IHC with gene expression by Agilent microarrays using TCGA-defined subtypes. We showed that ovarian tumors with elevated IHC PD-L1 expression are most strongly associated with immunoreactive subtype as compared with other molecular subtypes, reaching statistical significance against differentiated (Dunn's test, 33.39, p = 0.0003) and mesenchymal (39.63, p < 0.0001) subtypes. Comparing PD-L1 scoring with CPS vs. TPS showed similar trends, but with stronger correlation strength when using CPS (Kruskal-Wallis, H = 27.52, p < 0.0001), as opposed to TPS (H = 25.04, p < 0.0001). Interestingly, while PD-L1 gene expression by microarray was significantly increased in the immunoreactive subtype (H = 20.25, p = 0.0002), it showed a positive but relatively poor correlation to IHC. Overall, the results demonstrate potential value in use of the molecular classifier to select patients for ICB, pending further studies that assess its ability to predict treatment outcomes. In the future, integration of cellular, protein, and genomic biomarkers in the tumor and tumor microenvironment may improve current methods of predicting treatment response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32404957     DOI: 10.1038/s41379-020-0567-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  4 in total

Review 1.  Tumour Hypoxia-Mediated Immunosuppression: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches to Improve Cancer Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Zhe Fu; Alexandra M Mowday; Jeff B Smaill; Ian F Hermans; Adam V Patterson
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 2.  Comparative Analysis of Predictive Biomarkers for PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancers: Developments and Challenges.

Authors:  Fang Yang; Jacqueline F Wang; Yucai Wang; Baorui Liu; Julian R Molina
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 3.  Overview of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Gynecological Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Boštjan Pirš; Erik Škof; Vladimir Smrkolj; Špela Smrkolj
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Tumor Derived Extracellular Vesicles Drive T Cell Exhaustion in Tumor Microenvironment through Sphingosine Mediated Signaling and Impacting Immunotherapy Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Prachi Gupta; Ishaque Pulikkal Kadamberi; Sonam Mittal; Shirng-Wern Tsaih; Jasmine George; Sudhir Kumar; Dileep K Vijayan; Anjali Geethadevi; Deepak Parashar; Paytsar Topchyan; Lindsey McAlarnen; Brian F Volkman; Weiguo Cui; Kam Y J Zhang; Dolores Di Vizio; Pradeep Chaluvally-Raghavan; Sunila Pradeep
Journal:  Adv Sci (Weinh)       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 17.521

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.