4.6 Review

PD-L1 Expression in Glioblastoma, the Clinical and Prognostic Significance: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01015

关键词

glioblastoma; PD-L1; prognostic; clinicopathological; meta-analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:The clinical and prognostic value of programmed death-ligand 1, PD-L1, in glioblastoma remains controversial. The present study aimed to identify the expression of PD-L1 for its prognostic value in glioblastoma. Methods:A comprehensive literature search was performed using the PubMed and CNKI databases. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of GBM was analyzed based on Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Furthermore, Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were summarized for clinicopathological parameters. The statistical analysis was using RevMan 5.3 software. Results:The meta-analysis was performed by using total nine studies including 806 patients who had glioblastoma. The pooled results indicated that PD-L1 expression in tumor tissues was significantly related to a poor OS (HR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.19-2.24,P= 0.003, random effects model) with heterogeneity (I-2= 51%). In subgroup analyses, PD-L1 positivity was significantly associated with a worse OS for patients of American and Asian regions, but not for those of European regions. Moreover, PD-L1 expression implied a trend toward the mutation status of theIDH1gene [coding the Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (NADP(+))-1 protein] (HR = 9.92, 95%CI: 1.85-53.08,P= 0.007, fixed effects model). However, the prediction overall survival (OS) of the patients showed that PD-L1 expression was independent from other clinicopathological features, such as gender and age. Conclusions:Our analyses indicated that high expression of PD-L1 in glioblastoma tumor tissues is associated with poor survival of patients, and PD-L1 may act as a prognostic predictor and an effective therapeutic target for glioblastoma.

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

4.6
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