4.3 Article

Clinicopathologic implications of immune classification by PD-L1 expression and CD8-positive tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in stage II and III gastric cancer patients

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 16, 页码 26356-26367

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15465

关键词

gastric cancer; programmed cell death 1 ligand 1; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; cancer microenvironment

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2016R1D1A1B03931744]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We co-assessed PD-L1 expression and CD8(+) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in gastric cancer (GC), and categorized into 4 microenvironment immune types. Immunohistochemistry (PD-L1, CD8, Foxp3, E-cadherin, and p53), PD-L1 mRNA in situ hybridization (ISH), microsatellite instability (MSI), and EBV ISH were performed in 392 stage II/III GCs treated with curative surgery and fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy, and two public genome databases were analyzed for validation. PD-L1(+) was found in 98/392 GCs (25.0%). The proportions of immune types are as follows: PD-L1(+)/CD8(High), 22.7%; PD-L1(-)/CD8(Low), 22.7%; PD-L1(+)/CD8(Low), 2.3%; PD-L1(-)/CD8(High), 52.3%. PD-L1(+)/CD8(High) type accounted for majority of EBV+ and MSI-high (MSI-H) GCs (92.0% and 66.7%, respectively), and genome analysis from public datasets demonstrated similar pattern. PD-L1-/CD8High showed the best overall survival (OS) and PD-L1(-)/CD8(Low) the worst (P < 0.001). PD-L1 expression alone was not associated with OS, however, PD-L1(-)/CD8(High) type compared to PD-L1+/CD8High was independent favorable prognostic factor of OS by multivariate analysis (P = 0.042). Adaptation of recent molecular classification based on EBV, MSI, E-cadherin, and p53 showed no significant survival differences. These findings support the close relationship between PD-L1/CD8 status based immune types and EBV+, MSI-H GCs, and their prognostic significance in stage II/III GCs.

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

4.3
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