Integration of Spatial PD-L1 Expression with the Tumor Immune Microenvironment Outperforms Standard PD-L1 Scoring in Outcome Prediction of Urothelial Cancer Patients.
PD-1
PD-L1
TILs
bladder cancer
immune phenotypes
urothelial cancer
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 May 2021
12 May 2021
Historique:
received:
16
04
2021
revised:
04
05
2021
accepted:
06
05
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Immune therapy has gained significant importance in managing urothelial cancer. The value of PD-L1 remains a matter of controversy, thus requiring an in-depth analysis of its biological and clinical relevance. A total of 193 tumors of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients (MIBC) were assessed with four PD-L1 assays. PD-L1 scoring results were correlated with data from a comprehensive digital-spatial immune-profiling panel using descriptive statistics, hierarchical clustering and uni-/multivariable survival analyses. PD-L1 scoring algorithms are heterogeneous (agreements from 63.1% to 87.7%), and stems from different constellations of immune and tumor cells (IC/TC). While Ventana IC5% algorithm identifies tumors with high inflammation and favorable baseline prognosis, CPS10 and the TCarea25%/ICarea25% algorithm identify tumors with TC and IC expression. Spatially organized immune phenotypes, which correlate either with high PD-L1 IC expression and favorable prognosis or constitutive PD-L1 TC expression and poor baseline prognosis, cannot be resolved properly by PD-L1 algorithms. PD-L1 negative tumors with relevant immune infiltration can be detected by sTILs scoring on HE slides and digital CD8 Contemporary PD-L1 scoring algorithms are not sufficient to resolve spatially distributed MIBC immune phenotypes and their clinical implications. A more comprehensive view of immune phenotypes along with the integration of spatial PD-L1 expression on IC and TC is necessary in order to stratify patients for ICI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Immune therapy has gained significant importance in managing urothelial cancer. The value of PD-L1 remains a matter of controversy, thus requiring an in-depth analysis of its biological and clinical relevance.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 193 tumors of muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients (MIBC) were assessed with four PD-L1 assays. PD-L1 scoring results were correlated with data from a comprehensive digital-spatial immune-profiling panel using descriptive statistics, hierarchical clustering and uni-/multivariable survival analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
PD-L1 scoring algorithms are heterogeneous (agreements from 63.1% to 87.7%), and stems from different constellations of immune and tumor cells (IC/TC). While Ventana IC5% algorithm identifies tumors with high inflammation and favorable baseline prognosis, CPS10 and the TCarea25%/ICarea25% algorithm identify tumors with TC and IC expression. Spatially organized immune phenotypes, which correlate either with high PD-L1 IC expression and favorable prognosis or constitutive PD-L1 TC expression and poor baseline prognosis, cannot be resolved properly by PD-L1 algorithms. PD-L1 negative tumors with relevant immune infiltration can be detected by sTILs scoring on HE slides and digital CD8
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Contemporary PD-L1 scoring algorithms are not sufficient to resolve spatially distributed MIBC immune phenotypes and their clinical implications. A more comprehensive view of immune phenotypes along with the integration of spatial PD-L1 expression on IC and TC is necessary in order to stratify patients for ICI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34066058
pii: cancers13102327
doi: 10.3390/cancers13102327
pmc: PMC8150350
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Nature. 2018 Feb 22;554(7693):544-548
pubmed: 29443960
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;106:234-243
pubmed: 30528808
Nat Med. 2019 Nov;25(11):1706-1714
pubmed: 31686036
Immune Netw. 2020 Jan 27;20(1):e10
pubmed: 32158598
Adv Anat Pathol. 2017 Sep;24(5):235-251
pubmed: 28777142
Eur Urol. 2017 Jan;71(1):96-108
pubmed: 27370177
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 4;7(1):16878
pubmed: 29203879
Curr Drug Targets. 2021;22(2):162-170
pubmed: 32386490
Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 25;8(66):110693-110707
pubmed: 29299180
Cancer Treat Rev. 2017 Mar;54:58-67
pubmed: 28214651
Nat Rev Cancer. 2015 Jan;15(1):25-41
pubmed: 25533674
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):462-475
pubmed: 27375033
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 May;8(1):
pubmed: 32448798
Future Oncol. 2019 Jul;15(19):2199-2202
pubmed: 31213082
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 27;15(4):e0231936
pubmed: 32339189
Lancet. 2016 May 7;387(10031):1909-20
pubmed: 26952546
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 10;34(26):3119-25
pubmed: 27269937
Lancet. 2018 Feb 24;391(10122):748-757
pubmed: 29268948
Cancer Immunol Res. 2019 Jun;7(6):923-938
pubmed: 30988029
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jul;19(7):e341
pubmed: 29887223
Cancer Treat Rev. 2020 Jan;82:101925
pubmed: 31785413
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Oct;16(5):e1015-e1024
pubmed: 29960831
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Apr;22(4):525-537
pubmed: 33721560
Int J Oral Sci. 2020 May 28;12(1):16
pubmed: 32461587
Eur Urol. 2020 Feb;77(2):223-250
pubmed: 31753752
Semin Oncol. 2014 Apr;41(2):156-73
pubmed: 24787290
Virchows Arch. 2019 Nov;475(5):599-608
pubmed: 31267201
Mod Pathol. 2020 Jan;33(1):4-17
pubmed: 31383961
Mod Pathol. 2016 Oct;29(10):1165-72
pubmed: 27389313
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):67-76
pubmed: 27939400
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 16;376(11):1015-1026
pubmed: 28212060
Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1547-1557
pubmed: 32416780
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64
pubmed: 22437870
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Oct;8(2):
pubmed: 33023982
Cancer Sci. 2019 Feb;110(2):489-498
pubmed: 30548363
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Oct;18(5):e629-e642
pubmed: 32178978
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119
pubmed: 26996659