4.2 Article

Inverse correlation between PD-L1 expression and LGR5 expression in tumor budding of stage II/III colorectal cancer

Journal

ANNALS OF DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2021.151739

Keywords

Tumor budding; Leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein-coupled receptor 5; PD-L1; RNA in situ hybridization; Colorectal adenocarcinoma

Categories

Funding

  1. Hokuto Foundation for Bioscience

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that PD-L1-positive patients typically have lower LGR5 expression, and in the PD-L1 positive group, TILs score tended to be higher while TNM stage tended to be lower compared with the PD-L1 negative group. There was no significant difference in Overall Survival between PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative groups.
We investigated the expression of LGR5, the most robust and reliable known cancer stem cell (CSC) marker of colorectal cancer, and PD-L1 in tumor budding (TB), as well as clinicopathological features. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were generated from TB samples from 32 stage II/III colorectal adenocarcinoma patients, and LGR5 expression in TMAs was evaluated by RNA-scope, an extremely sensitive RNA in situ hybridization technique. LGR5 expression was significantly lower in the PD-L1-positive group than in the PD-L1-negative group (P = 0.0256). In the PD-L1-positive group, the tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) score tended to be higher while the TNM stage was lower compared with the PD-L1 negative group (P = 0.0822 and P = 0.0765, respectively). There was no significant difference in Overall Survival between the PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative groups (log-rank test, P = 0.8218). This study showed that PD-L1-positive patients are a unique population with low LGR5 expression, and that LGR5-positive cells may be a promising therapeutic target in PD-L1-negative patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available