4.6 Article

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of Programmed Death Ligand-1 in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156323

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 81550009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, the interest in programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) as a prognostic marker in several types of malignant tumors has increased. In the present meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the prognostic and clinicopathological value of PD-L1 in breast cancer. We searched Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library databases, and grey literature from inception until January 20, 2016. Studies concerning breast cancer that focused on PD-L1 expression and studies reporting survival data were included; two authors independently performed the data extraction. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were assessed to determine the association between the clinicopathological parameters of patients and PD-L1 expression. Five studies involving 2061 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that positive/higher PDL1 expression was a negative predictor for breast cancer, with an RR of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.14-2.34) for the total mortality risk and an RR of 2.53 (95% CI, 1.78-3.59) for the mortality risk 10 years after surgery. Moreover, positive/higher PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with positive lymph node metastasis (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70), poor nuclear grade (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.43), and negative estrogen receptor status (RR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.31-4.60) in breast cancer patients. Our findings suggest that PD-L1 can serve as a significant biomarker for poor prognosis and the adverse clinicopathologic features of breast cancer and could facilitate the better management of individual 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available