4.4 Review

PD-L1 Expression in Cutaneous Angiosarcomas: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Journal

CURRENT ONCOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 5135-5144

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30050388

Keywords

skin; cancer; cutaneous angiosarcomas; PD-L1; immunohistochemistry; immunotherapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS), the most common type of angiosarcoma, is being investigated for immunotherapy targeting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies with 279 cases showed a pooled PD-L1 expression rate of 54% (95% CI 36-71%), but with high heterogeneity (I-2 = 84.81%, p < 0.001). Sub-group analysis revealed significantly lower PD-L1 expression in Asian studies (ES = 35%, 95% CI 28-42%, I-2 = 0.0%, p = 0.46) compared to European studies (ES = 71%, 95% CI 51-89%, I-2 = 48.91%, p = 0.12).
Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is the most common type of angiosarcoma that predominantly affects older Caucasians. The outcomes of immunotherapy in CAS are currently under investigation in relation to the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and other biomarkers. We performed a systematic review and metanalysis of data from the current literature reporting on PD-L1 immunohistochemistry expression. A systematic search of publications in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted using the following terms: PD-L1 and angiosarcomas. A total of ten studies reporting on 279 cases were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of PD-L1 expression in CAS was 54% (95% CI 36-71%), with high heterogeneity (I-2 = 84.81%, p < 0.001). In sub-group analysis, the proportion of PD-L1 expression in CAS was significantly (p = 0.049) lower in Asian studies (ES = 35%, 95% CI 28-42%, I-2 = 0.0%, p = 0.46) than in European studies (ES = 71%, 95% CI 51-89%, I-2 = 48.91%, p = 0.12).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available