B. C. Coimbra, M. A. Pereira, L. Cardili, Venâncio Avancini Ferreira Alves, E. S. de Mello, Ulysses Ribeiro, M. Ramos
{"title":"评估胃腺癌原发肿瘤和成对淋巴结转移中程序性死亡配体 1 的表达情况","authors":"B. C. Coimbra, M. A. Pereira, L. Cardili, Venâncio Avancini Ferreira Alves, E. S. de Mello, Ulysses Ribeiro, M. Ramos","doi":"10.4251/wjgo.v16.i3.883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Anti-programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy has demonstrated promising results on gastric cancer (GC). However, PD-L1 can express differently between metastatic sites and primary tumors (PT).\n AIM\n To compare PD-L1 status in PT and matched lymph node metastases (LNM) of GC patients and to determine the correlation between the PD-L1 status and clinicopathological characteristics.\n METHODS\n We retrospectively reviewed 284 GC patients who underwent D2-gastrectomy. PD-L1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (clone SP142) using the combined positive score. All PD-L1+ PT staged as pN+ were also tested for PD-L1 expression in their LNM. PD-L1(-) GC with pN+ served as the comparison group.\n RESULTS\n Among 284 GC patients included, 45 had PD-L1+ PT and 24 of them had pN+. For comparison, 44 PD-L1(-) cases with pN+ were included (sample loss of 4 cases). Of the PD-L1+ PT, 54.2% (13/24 cases) were also PD-L1+ in the LNM. Regarding PD-L1(-) PT, 9.1% (4/44) had PD-L1+ in the LNM. The agreement between PT and LNM had a kappa value of 0.483. Larger tumor size and moderate/severe peritumoral inflammatory response were associated with PD-L1 positivity in both sites. There was no statistical difference in overall survival for PT and LNM according to the PD-L1 status (P = 0.166 and P = 0.837, respectively).\n CONCLUSION\n Intra-patient heterogeneity in PD-L1 expression was observed between the PT and matched LNM. This disagreement in PD-L1 status may emphasize the importance of considering different tumor sites for analyses to select patients for immunotherapy.","PeriodicalId":504226,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of programmed death-ligand 1 expression in primary tumors and paired lymph node metastases of gastric adenocarcinoma\",\"authors\":\"B. C. Coimbra, M. A. Pereira, L. Cardili, Venâncio Avancini Ferreira Alves, E. S. de Mello, Ulysses Ribeiro, M. Ramos\",\"doi\":\"10.4251/wjgo.v16.i3.883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\n Anti-programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy has demonstrated promising results on gastric cancer (GC). However, PD-L1 can express differently between metastatic sites and primary tumors (PT).\\n AIM\\n To compare PD-L1 status in PT and matched lymph node metastases (LNM) of GC patients and to determine the correlation between the PD-L1 status and clinicopathological characteristics.\\n METHODS\\n We retrospectively reviewed 284 GC patients who underwent D2-gastrectomy. PD-L1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (clone SP142) using the combined positive score. All PD-L1+ PT staged as pN+ were also tested for PD-L1 expression in their LNM. PD-L1(-) GC with pN+ served as the comparison group.\\n RESULTS\\n Among 284 GC patients included, 45 had PD-L1+ PT and 24 of them had pN+. For comparison, 44 PD-L1(-) cases with pN+ were included (sample loss of 4 cases). Of the PD-L1+ PT, 54.2% (13/24 cases) were also PD-L1+ in the LNM. Regarding PD-L1(-) PT, 9.1% (4/44) had PD-L1+ in the LNM. The agreement between PT and LNM had a kappa value of 0.483. Larger tumor size and moderate/severe peritumoral inflammatory response were associated with PD-L1 positivity in both sites. There was no statistical difference in overall survival for PT and LNM according to the PD-L1 status (P = 0.166 and P = 0.837, respectively).\\n CONCLUSION\\n Intra-patient heterogeneity in PD-L1 expression was observed between the PT and matched LNM. This disagreement in PD-L1 status may emphasize the importance of considering different tumor sites for analyses to select patients for immunotherapy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v16.i3.883\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v16.i3.883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment of programmed death-ligand 1 expression in primary tumors and paired lymph node metastases of gastric adenocarcinoma
BACKGROUND
Anti-programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy has demonstrated promising results on gastric cancer (GC). However, PD-L1 can express differently between metastatic sites and primary tumors (PT).
AIM
To compare PD-L1 status in PT and matched lymph node metastases (LNM) of GC patients and to determine the correlation between the PD-L1 status and clinicopathological characteristics.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 284 GC patients who underwent D2-gastrectomy. PD-L1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (clone SP142) using the combined positive score. All PD-L1+ PT staged as pN+ were also tested for PD-L1 expression in their LNM. PD-L1(-) GC with pN+ served as the comparison group.
RESULTS
Among 284 GC patients included, 45 had PD-L1+ PT and 24 of them had pN+. For comparison, 44 PD-L1(-) cases with pN+ were included (sample loss of 4 cases). Of the PD-L1+ PT, 54.2% (13/24 cases) were also PD-L1+ in the LNM. Regarding PD-L1(-) PT, 9.1% (4/44) had PD-L1+ in the LNM. The agreement between PT and LNM had a kappa value of 0.483. Larger tumor size and moderate/severe peritumoral inflammatory response were associated with PD-L1 positivity in both sites. There was no statistical difference in overall survival for PT and LNM according to the PD-L1 status (P = 0.166 and P = 0.837, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Intra-patient heterogeneity in PD-L1 expression was observed between the PT and matched LNM. This disagreement in PD-L1 status may emphasize the importance of considering different tumor sites for analyses to select patients for immunotherapy.