4.5 Review

Prognostic Role of PD-L1 Expression in Renal Cell Carcinoma. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

TARGETED ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 143-148

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-015-0392-7

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several clinical trials have reported that therapies targeting programmed death-1 (PD1) and its ligand (PD-L1) improve patient outcomes, while tumor response has been related to PD-L1 expression. To investigate the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in patients affected by renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ASCO University were searched for studies investigating the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression in RCC. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Six studies and 1323 cases were included in the final analysis. PD-L1 was expressed in 24.2 % of clear cell tumors compared to 10.9 % of non-clear cell tumors (p = 0.002). In the overall population, a higher level of PD-L1 expression increased the risk of death by 81 % (HR; 1.81, 95 % CI 1.31-2.49; p < 0.001). When the analysis was restricted to cases evaluated by immunohistochemistry alone, the higher expression of PD-L1 more than doubled the risk of death (HR; 2.05, 95 % CI 1.38-3.05; p < 0.001). In clear cell histology, higher PD-L1 expression increased the risk of death by 53 % (HR; 1.53, 95 % CI 1.27-1.84; p < 0.001), while in metastatic patients, the evaluation of PD-L1 expression on primary tumors revealed that it retains its prognostic role (HR; 1.45, 95 % CI 1.08-1.93; p = 0.01). Significant heterogeneity has been identified among the included studies. As a consequence, cautious interpretation of the results is recommended. This meta-analysis indicates that a higher level of PD-L1 expression is a negative prognostic factor in RCC. Its validation as an independent prognostic factor compared to other traditionally used clinical parameters in localized or advanced disease is recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据