4.7 Article

Prognostic Value of Programmed Death Ligand 1 and Programmed Death 1 Expression in Thymic Carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 18, 页码 4727-4734

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0434

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The immune checkpoint of the programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway is believed to play an important role in evasion of host antitumor immune surveillance in various malignancies; however, little is known about its role in thymic carcinoma. This study investigated PD-1/PD-L1 expression and its association with clinicopathologic features, the expression of immune-related proteins in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), and patient prognosis. Experimental Design: PD-L1 and PD-1 expression was evaluated by IHC in 25 thymic carcinoma tissue specimens. Copy number alterations of the PD-L1 gene in 11 cases were assessed in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material using qRT-PCR. Results: Compared with normal subjects, 3 thymic carcinoma patients showed an increase in PD-L1 copy number, whereas 8 did not. PD-L1 was significantly overexpressed in cases with copy number gain as compared with normal cases. High PD-L1 expression was associated with higher disease-free and overall survival rates as compared to cases with low expression. Prognostic analysis revealed low PD-L1 expression and high number of PD-1(+) TILs as significant predictors of poor survival, together with Masaoka-Koga stage IVa/IVb disease and incomplete resection. In the quantitative analysis of TILs, PD-L1 expression correlated proportionally with the number of infiltrating CTLs. Conclusions: Here, for the first time, we report that PD-L1 and PD-1 expression might be useful prognostic predictors in thymic carcinoma. Further studies are expected to substantiate the prognostic value of PD-L1 and PD-1 expression, and the potential efficacy of targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in thymic carcinoma via immunotherapy. (C)2016 AACR.

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