Programmed Death Ligand 1 Is a Negative Prognostic Marker in Recurrent Isocitrate Dehydrogenase-Wildtype Glioblastoma.
Glioblastoma
Immunohistochemistry
Immunotherapy
In situ hybridization
PD-1
PD-L1
RNA
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2019
01 08 2019
Historique:
received:
02
02
2018
accepted:
21
05
2018
pubmed:
17
7
2018
medline:
25
3
2020
entrez:
17
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Checkpoint inhibition has demonstrated clinical efficacy in a variety of solid tumors. Reports of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in glioblastoma are highly variable (ranging from 6% to 88%) and its role as a prognostic marker has yielded conflicting results. To validate the prevalence and prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in a large cohort of diffuse gliomas according to the 2016 revised WHO classification. Using tissue microarrays, we compared 5 PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (n = 56) and validated expression (n = 183) using quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) and RNA in situ hybridization (RISH). Expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and published studies were compared with clinical outcome. Multiplexed immunophenotyping was used to identify PD-L1+ cell populations in post-treatment glioblastoma. Using a 5% cut-off, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with a poor prognosis in both histologically defined (n = 125, log-rank P < .001) and recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma (n = 60, log-rank P = .015). PD-L1 remained a significant negative prognosticator in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.96, P = .021). Analysis of TCGA data confirmed decreased overall survival in recurrent non-glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) glioblastoma (n = 12, log-rank P = .023), but not in glioblastoma as a group (n = 444, log-rank P = .135). PD-L1 RISH showed a significant correlation with IHC (P < .0001). PD-L1 was observed in the proliferating perivascular stem cell and immune niche of post-treatment glioblastoma. A 5% PD-L1 expression cut-off identified a subset of glioblastoma that is associated with a worse clinical outcome. This association remained significant within the newly defined IDH-wildtype classification. These findings could have implications for patient stratification in future clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Checkpoint inhibition has demonstrated clinical efficacy in a variety of solid tumors. Reports of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in glioblastoma are highly variable (ranging from 6% to 88%) and its role as a prognostic marker has yielded conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
To validate the prevalence and prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in a large cohort of diffuse gliomas according to the 2016 revised WHO classification.
METHODS
Using tissue microarrays, we compared 5 PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (n = 56) and validated expression (n = 183) using quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) and RNA in situ hybridization (RISH). Expression data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and published studies were compared with clinical outcome. Multiplexed immunophenotyping was used to identify PD-L1+ cell populations in post-treatment glioblastoma.
RESULTS
Using a 5% cut-off, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with a poor prognosis in both histologically defined (n = 125, log-rank P < .001) and recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastoma (n = 60, log-rank P = .015). PD-L1 remained a significant negative prognosticator in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.96, P = .021). Analysis of TCGA data confirmed decreased overall survival in recurrent non-glioma CpG island methylator phenotype (G-CIMP) glioblastoma (n = 12, log-rank P = .023), but not in glioblastoma as a group (n = 444, log-rank P = .135). PD-L1 RISH showed a significant correlation with IHC (P < .0001). PD-L1 was observed in the proliferating perivascular stem cell and immune niche of post-treatment glioblastoma.
CONCLUSION
A 5% PD-L1 expression cut-off identified a subset of glioblastoma that is associated with a worse clinical outcome. This association remained significant within the newly defined IDH-wildtype classification. These findings could have implications for patient stratification in future clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30011045
pii: 5052719
doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy268
pmc: PMC7137460
doi:
Substances chimiques
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CD274 protein, human
0
Isocitrate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.1.1.41
IDH1 protein, human
EC 1.1.1.42.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
280-289Informations de copyright
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2018.
Références
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Nov;12(11):1113-25
pubmed: 20667896
Genome Res. 2015 Mar;25(3):316-27
pubmed: 25650244
J Neurooncol. 2017 Jul;133(3):561-569
pubmed: 28500559
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Oct 1;20(19):5064-74
pubmed: 24714771
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jun 20;26(18):3015-24
pubmed: 18565887
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Jan;19(1):139-141
pubmed: 28031383
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 1;23(19):5948-5958
pubmed: 28679765
Lab Invest. 2017 May;97(5):498-518
pubmed: 28287634
Neuro Oncol. 2016 Oct;18(10):1357-66
pubmed: 27370400
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;19(8):1047-1057
pubmed: 28371827
Mol Cancer. 2010 Sep 07;9:234
pubmed: 20822523
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Feb 1;3(2):256-259
pubmed: 27541827
J Pathol. 2008 Sep;216(1):15-24
pubmed: 18553315
Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 8;9(1):559
pubmed: 29422647
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9;377(19):1888-1890
pubmed: 29117487
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 1;34(19):2206-11
pubmed: 27001570
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2509-20
pubmed: 26028255
Nat Genet. 2016 Jul;48(7):768-76
pubmed: 27270107
Glia. 2011 Aug;59(8):1169-80
pubmed: 21446047
Nature. 2017 Sep 7;549(7670):106-110
pubmed: 28813410
Cancer Res. 2003 Nov 1;63(21):7462-7
pubmed: 14612546
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Nov;17 Suppl 7:vii9-vii14
pubmed: 26516226
J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2017 Aug 1;76(8):697-708
pubmed: 28789475
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Neuro Oncol. 2016 Feb;18(2):195-205
pubmed: 26323609
Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 1;69(23):9065-72
pubmed: 19920198
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 6;8(53):91779-91794
pubmed: 29207684
Mol Cancer Res. 2009 Feb;7(2):157-67
pubmed: 19208739
Neuro Oncol. 2014 Nov;16(11):1478-83
pubmed: 24860178
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Aug;17(8):1064-75
pubmed: 25355681
Nat Med. 2002 Aug;8(8):793-800
pubmed: 12091876
Cancer Discov. 2016 Nov;6(11):1230-1236
pubmed: 27683556
J Neurooncol. 2018 Feb;136(3):453-461
pubmed: 29147863
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11;369(2):122-33
pubmed: 23724867
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Jul 19;9(399):
pubmed: 28724573
Neuro Oncol. 2010 Sep;12(9):991-1003
pubmed: 20484145
Nat Med. 2007 Jan;13(1):84-8
pubmed: 17159987
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 22;376(25):2415-2426
pubmed: 28636851
Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):803-20
pubmed: 27157931
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 1;13(7):2038-45
pubmed: 17404084
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Oct 19;19(11):1460-1468
pubmed: 28531337
Science. 2014 Jan 10;343(6167):189-193
pubmed: 24336570
J Neurosci. 2013 Aug 28;33(35):14231-45
pubmed: 23986257