| Literature DB >> 32765086 |
Fan Guo1,2, Yang-Chun Feng1,2, Gang Zhao3, Ran Zhang4, Zhen-Zhen Cheng1, Wei-Na Kong1,2, Hui-Li Wu1, Bin Xu1, Xiang Lv1, Xiu-Min Ma1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is a negative costimulatory molecule, and its main function is widely considered to be in the regulation of T cells. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are an important part of the tumor microenvironment, and they also play an important role in immunosuppression. However, the relationship between the expression of PD-L1 and TAMs in cervical carcinoma (CC) remains unclear. We detected the expression of PD-L1 and TAMs in tumor tissue to study the correlation between them.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; macrophages; programmed death-ligand 1; tumor microenvironment
Year: 2020 PMID: 32765086 PMCID: PMC7369418 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S257692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Immunohistochemistry staining for PD-L1, CD68, and CD163 expression in cervical squamous cell carcinoma tissues. The left panel shows negative staining for PD-L1 and low macrophage density. The right panel shows positive staining for PD-L1 and high macrophage density.
PD-L1 Expression (via Immunohistochemistry) and Clinical Characteristics of 118 Patients with Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma
| Clinical or Pathologic Features | Total No. | PD-L1 Expression in Tumor Cells | PD-L1 Expression in Stroma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | ||||
| All cases | 118a | 69(58.5) | 49(41.5) | - | 51(43.2) | 67(56.8) | - |
| Age at diagnosis | 0.61 | 0.068 | |||||
| < 35 years old | 20 | 11(55.0) | 9(45.0) | 9(45.0) | 11(55.0) | ||
| 35–55 years old | 78 | 48(61.5) | 30(38.5) | 38(48.7) | 40(51.3) | ||
| >55 years old | 20 | 10(50.0) | 10(50.0) | 4(20.0) | 16(80.0) | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.37 | 0.80 | |||||
| Uygur | 63 | 35(55.6) | 28(44.4) | 27(42.9) | 36(57.1) | ||
| Han | 48 | 28(58.3) | 20(41.7) | 20(41.7) | 28(58.3) | ||
| Other minorities | 7 | 6(85.7) | 1(14.3) | 4(57.1) | 3(42.9) | ||
| Childbearing history | 0.008 | 0.067 | |||||
| 0–2 times | 60 | 28(46.7) | 32(53.3) | 21(35.0) | 39(65.0) | ||
| ≥ 3 times | 58 | 41(70.7) | 17(29.3) | 30(51.7) | 28(41.3) | ||
| Abortion history | 0.001 | 0.66 | |||||
| Yes | 69 | 49(71.0) | 20(29.0) | 31(44.9) | 38(55.1) | ||
| No | 49 | 20(40.8) | 29(59.2) | 20(40.8) | 29(59.2) | ||
| HPV status | 0.17 | 0.22 | |||||
| HPV 16 | 44 | 24(54.5) | 20(45.4) | 20(45.5) | 24(54.5) | ||
| HVP18 | 35 | 22(62.9) | 13(37.1) | 18(51.4) | 17(48.6) | ||
| Other | 24 | 11(45.8) | 13(54.2) | 10(41.7) | 14(58.3) | ||
| Negative | 15 | 12(80.0) | 3(20.0) | 3(20.0) | 12(80.0) | ||
| Tumor size | 0.57 | 0.31 | |||||
| ≤ 4 cm | 47 | 26(55.3) | 21(44.7) | 23(48.9) | 24(51.1) | ||
| > 4 cm | 71 | 43(60.6) | 28(39.4) | 28(39.4) | 43(60.6) | ||
| Differentiation | 0.20 | 0.87 | |||||
| Low | 66 | 42(63.6) | 24(36.4) | 31(47.0) | 35(53.0) | ||
| Middle/High | 52 | 27(51.9) | 25(48.1) | 30(57.7) | 32(61.5) | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.95 | 0.14 | |||||
| IA ~ IIA2 | 51 | 30(58.8) | 21(41.2) | 26(51.0) | 25(49.0) | ||
| ≥ IIB | 67 | 39(58.2) | 28(41.8) | 25(37.3) | 42(62.7) | ||
| Lymph node metastases | 0.056 | 0.085 | |||||
| Yes | 30 | 22(73.3) | 8(26.7) | 17(56.7) | 13(43.3) | ||
| No | 88 | 47(53.4) | 41(46.6) | 34(38.6) | 54(61.4) | ||
Notes: Data were shown as number of cases (%). aTwo samples could not be evaluated for PD-L1 owing to sample conditions.
Figure 2Clinical significance of PD-L1expression in 118 patients.
Density of CD68- and CD163-Positive Cells in the Tumor Field and Clinical Features in 120 Samples of Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma
| Clinical or Pathologic Features | CD68 | CD 163 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total No. | CD68 (%) | Total No. | CD163 (%) | |||
| All cases | 120 | 13.84±5.83 | – | 115a | 13.33±7.30 | – |
| Age at diagnosis | 0.54 | 0.64 | ||||
| <35 years old | 20 | 12.98±6.24 | 19 | 12.65±7.85 | ||
| 35–55 years old | 78 | 14.54±7.21 | 77 | 13.45±7.23 | ||
| >55 years old | 22 | 14.03±5.65 | 19 | 13.91±8.21 | ||
| Ethnicity | 0.43 | 0.44 | ||||
| Uygur | 64 | 15.33±5.98 | 60 | 14.21±8.54 | ||
| Han | 49 | 13.96±6.18 | 48 | 13.29±8.02 | ||
| Other minorities | 7 | 12.23±7.23 | 7 | 12.51±9.21 | ||
| Childbearing history | 0.12 | 0.24 | ||||
| 0–2 times | 62 | 14.21±6.21 | 57 | 12.79±8.32 | ||
| ≥ 3 times | 58 | 13.47±6.89 | 58 | 13.87±8.82 | ||
| Abortion history | 0.46 | 0.09 | ||||
| Yes | 71 | 13.01±6.32 | 69 | 14.02±8.76 | ||
| No | 49 | 14.67±5.99 | 46 | 12.64±9.13 | ||
| HPV status | 0.37 | 0.32 | ||||
| HPV 16 | 45 | 14.88±5.91 | 44 | 14.65±7.98. | ||
| HVP18 | 36 | 14.84±6.27 | 35 | 14.34±8.32 | ||
| Other | 24 | 13.12±6.93 | 23 | 13.01±8.54 | ||
| Negative | 15 | 12.54±7.32 | 13 | 11.32±10.21 | ||
| Tumor size | 0.52 | 0.84 | ||||
| ≤ 4 cm | 47 | 13.21±6.98 | 44 | 13.35±9.21 | ||
| > 4 cm | 72 | 14.45±6.12 | 71 | 13.31±8.35 | ||
| Differentiation | 0.18 | 0.21 | ||||
| Low | 68 | 13.45±6.01 | 66 | 13.99±8.02 | ||
| Middle/High | 52 | 14.23±6.92 | 49 | 12.67±9.15 | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.12 | 0.04 | ||||
| IA ~ IIA2 | 51 | 13.03±7.21 | 50 | 12.03±8.87 | ||
| ≥ IIB | 69 | 14.65±6.34 | 65 | 14.63±8.12 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | 0.06 | 0.03 | ||||
| Yes | 32 | 14.88±8.32 | 30 | 15.23±9.21 | ||
| No | 88 | 12.81±6.31 | 85 | 11.43±8.13 | ||
Note: aFive samples could not be evaluated for CD163 owing to sample conditions.
Abbreviation: SE, standard error.
Figure 3Correlation of PD-L1 expression and density of CD68-and CD163-positive cells in cervical cancer.
Notes: (A) PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and density ofCD68. (B) PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and density of CD163. (C) PD-L1 expression in the stroma and density of CD68. (D) PD-L1 expression in the stroma and density of CD163.
Figure 4Relationship between the density of CD68- and CD163-positive cells and the expression of PD-L1 in cervical cancer. (A) Density of CD68 in PD-L1 positive and negative expression groups in TC. (B) Density of CD163 in PD-L1 positive and negative expression groups in TC. (C) Density of CD68 in PD-L1 positive and negative expression groups in stroma. (D) Density of CD163 in PD-L1 positive and negative expression groups in stroma.
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Factors Associated with PD-L1 Expression in Tumor Cells
| Clinical or Pathologic Features | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |||
| Age at diagnosis | ||||
| < 59 years old | 1 (reference) | |||
| ≥50 years old | 1.66(0.78–3.54) | 0.19 | ||
| Ethnicity | ||||
| Uygur | 1 (reference) | 0.49 | ||
| Han | 0.38(0.07–2.06) | |||
| Other minorities | 0.48(0.09–2.72) | |||
| Childbearing history | ||||
| 0–2 times | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| ≥ 3 times | 2.70(1.24–5.88) | 0.012 | 0.08(0.01–1.04) | 0.053 |
| Abortion history | ||||
| No | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Yes | 2.59(1.20–5.58) | 0.015 | 0.07(0.01–0.94) | 0.44 |
| HPV status | ||||
| HPV 16 | 1 (reference) | 0.15 | ||
| HVP18 | 0.27(0.07–1.11) | |||
| Other | 0.41(0.10–1.70) | |||
| Negative | 0.20(0.05–0.86) | |||
| Tumor size | ||||
| ≤ 4 cm | 1 (reference) | |||
| > 4 cm | 2.89(0.48–17.49) | 0.25 | ||
| Differentiation | ||||
| Middle/High | 1 (reference) | |||
| Low | 2.35(0.63–8.71) | 0.20 | ||
| FIGO stage | ||||
| IA ~ IIA2 | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| ≥ IIB | 0.20(0.03–1.23) | 0.082 | 1.70(0.33–8.83) | 0.53 |
| Lymph node metastases | ||||
| No | 1 (reference) | |||
| Yes | 1.43(0.57–3.59) | 0.44 | ||
| CD68-positive cell densitya | 0.94(0.82–1.07) | 0.31 | ||
| CD163-positive cell densitya | 1.61(1.35–1.93) | 0.0001 | 1.52(1.31–1.89) | 0.032 |
Note: aContinuous variable.
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.
Figure 5Recurrence-free and overall survival curves in CC patients. (A) Kaplan–Meier OS curves according to PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (B) Kaplan–Meier OS curves according to PD-L1 expression in stroma (C) Kaplan–Meier OS curves according to the density of CD68-positive cells (D) Kaplan–Meier OS curves according to the density of CD163-positive cells (E) Kaplan–Meier RFS curves according to PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (F) Kaplan–Meier RFS curves according to PD-L1 expression in stroma (G) Kaplan–Meier RFS curves according to the density of CD68-positive cells (H) Kaplan–Meier RFS curves according to the density of CD163-positive cells. (The density of CD68/CD163 above median = high CD68/CD163; The density of CD68/CD163 below median = low CD68/CD163; p-values obtained from Log-rank tests.).
Univariate Analysis of Overall and Recurrence-Free Survival
| Clinical or Pathologic Features | Overall Survival | Recurrence-Free Survival | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | |||
| PD-L1 expression (tumor cells) | ||||
| Negative | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Positive | 2.26 (0.99–5.15) | 0.075 | 2.66 (1.21–5.85) | 0.028 |
| PD-L1 expression (stroma) | ||||
| Negative | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Positive | 2.0 (0.86–4.67) | 0.10 | 2.02 (0.89–4.55) | 0.084 |
| CD68-positive cell density | ||||
| Low | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| High | 1.06 (0.47–2.35) | 0.89 | 0.88 (0.41–1.89) | 0.74 |
| CD163-positive cell density | ||||
| Low | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| High | 2.68 (1.17–6.15) | 0.016 | 2.48 (1.12–5.50) | 0.021 |
Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.