| Literature DB >> 33062072 |
Lei Zhao1, Yaming Cao2.
Abstract
The expression of PD-L1 could be a novel biomarker which predicts that patients are more likely to respond to immunotherapy. Our study investigated the relationship among clinicopathological characteristics, prognosis, PD-L1 expression levels, and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration. In addition, the relationship among clinicopathological characteristics, prognosis, PD-L1 expression levels, and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration was explored. Furthermore, the relationship between PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration was examined. We found that 41.3% of pancreatic cancer patients had PD-L1-positive staining; both PD-L1 expression levels and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration were significantly associated with depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, and pTNM. In addition, PD-L1 expression and FOXP3+ Treg infiltration also could be prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33062072 PMCID: PMC7532998 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8843146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1Immunohistochemical staining: (a) negative CD4+ T-cell infiltration and (b) positive CD4+ T-cell infiltration; (c) negative CD8+ T-cell infiltration and (d) positive CD8+ T-cell infiltration; (e) negative PD-L1 expression and (f) positive PD-L1 expression; (g) negative FOXP3+ Treg cell infiltration and (h) positive FOXP3+ Treg cell infiltration. Scale bars represent 50 μm.
Correlations among PD-L1 expression, FOXP3+ Treg infiltration, and clinicopathologic characteristics of pancreatic cancer patients.
| PD-L1 expression | FOXP3+ Treg infiltration | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinicopathological parameters | Negative | Positive |
|
| Negative | Positive |
|
|
| No. of patients | 37 (58.7) | 26 (41.3) | 28 (44.4) | 35 (55.6) | ||||
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| <65 | 14 (51.6) | 13 (48.1) | -0.121 | 0.345 | 13 (48.1) | 14 (51.9) | 0.065 | 0.615 |
| ≥65 | 23 (63.9) | 13 (36.1) | 15 (41.9) | 21 (58.3) | ||||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Female | 13 (59.1) | 9 (40.9) | 0.005 | 0.967 | 10 (45.5) | 12 (54.5) | 0.015 | 0.908 |
| Male | 24 (58.5) | 17 (41.5) | 18 (43.9) | 23 (56.1) | ||||
| Tumor status | ||||||||
| T1 | 5 (100) | 0 (0) | 0.472 | <0.001∗∗∗ | 4 (80) | 1 (20) | 0.277 | 0.028∗ |
| T2 | 14 (87.5) | 2 (12.5) | 9 (56.3) | 7 (43.7) | ||||
| T3 | 18 (43.9) | 23 (56.1) | 15 (36.6) | 26 (63.4) | ||||
| T4 | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | ||||
| Nodal status | ||||||||
| N0 | 21 (80.8) | 5 (19.2) | 0.375 | 0.002∗∗ | 19 (73.1) | 7 (26.9) | 0.483 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| N1 | 16 (43.2) | 21 (56.8) | 9 (56.8) | 28 (56.8) | ||||
| Metastatic status | ||||||||
| M0 | 36 (66.7) | 18 (33.3) | 0.395 | 0.001∗∗ | 27 (50) | 27 (50) | 0.274 | 0.03∗ |
| M1 | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) | ||||
| Pathologic status | ||||||||
| Stage I | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | 0.556 | <0.001∗∗∗ | 7 (77.8) | 2 (22.2) | 0.542 | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Stage IIa | 19 (82.6) | 4 (17.4) | 16 (69.6) | 7 (30.4) | ||||
| Stage IIb | 9 (42.9) | 12 (57.1) | 4 (19) | 17 (81) | ||||
| Stage III | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | ||||
| Stage IV | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) | ||||
| FOXP3+ Treg infiltration | ||||||||
| Low | 22 (78.6) | 6 (21.4) | 0.360 | 0.004∗∗ | ||||
| High | 15 (42.9) | 20 (57.1) | ||||||
Figure 2Overall survival rate: (a) overall survival based on PD-L1 expression level, (b) overall survival depending on FOXP3+ Treg cell infiltration, and (c) overall survival based on PD-L1 expression level with FOXP3+ Treg cell infiltration.
The PD-L1 expression levels were associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cells.
| PD-L1 expression |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||
| CD4 (%) | ||||
| Positive | 14 (53.8) | 30 (81.1) | -0.292 | 0.02∗ |
| Negative | 12 (46.2) | 7 (18.9) | ||
| CD8 (%) | ||||
| Positive | 13 (50.0) | 30 (81.1) | -0.329 | 0.009∗∗ |
| Negative | 13 (50.0) | 7 (18.9) | ||