4.7 Article

Program Death 1 Immune Checkpoint and Tumor Microenvironment: Implications for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 2610-2617

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5101-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  2. Five Prime Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Program death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have been identified as potential therapeutic targets for solid and hematologic malignancies. The current study aimed to assess PD-L1 expression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and relate clinical outcomes to its expression. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor specimens were obtained for patients undergoing surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 1991 and 2011. Immunohistochemistry was used to assess PD-L1 expression in tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and within the tumor front (TF). Of 54 tumor samples analyzed, 34 stained positive for PD-L1 expression on TAMs (TAMs+), and 39 stained positive for PD-L1 expression on cells within the tumor front (TF+). The TF+ patients were less likely to present with metastatic lymph nodes (N1 patients: 26.7 vs 7.7 %; p = 0.011), whereas all tumors with intrahepatic metastasis failed to demonstrate staining for PD-L1 around the tumor front (p = 0.020). Patients with tumors shown to be TAMs+ were less likely to present with multiple lesions (35.0 vs 8.8 %; p = 0.017). Patients with tumors exhibiting PD-L1 expression around the tumor front demonstrated a worse overall survival than TF patients (p = 0.008). Multivariable analysis showed that patients with tumors staining for PD-L1 in the tumor front had a 59.5 % reduced survival (TF- vs TF+: time ratio, 0.405; 95 % confidence interval, 0.215-0.761; p = 0.005). Expression of PD-L1 was noted among a majority of patients, and PD-L1 expression within the tumor front was associated with a 60 % decreased survival. Future clinical trials are necessary to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-L1 therapies among patients with ICC.

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

4.7
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