Journal List > J Gynecol Oncol > v.28(6) > 1093864

Zhu, Wen, Bi, Wu, and Wu: Prognostic value of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in ovarian clear cell carcinoma

Abstract

Objective

Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) was expressed in various tumors and antibodies targeting its receptor programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) are emerging cancer therapeutics. This study was designed to evaluate the expression of PD-L1 and its correlation with clinicopathologic features and clinical outcomes in ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC).

Methods

The PD-L1 expression was measured by tissue-microarray-based immunohistochemistry from 122 eligible patients diagnosed with OCCC. The associations of clinicopathologic features with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis was further performed by Cox regression model.

Results

Overall, high PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 high) was observed in 44.7% (55/123) of OCCC patients, and was strongly associated with advanced stages (p=0.020), positive ascitic fluid (p=0.016), platinum-resistant (PR) disease (p=0.045), and recurrence (p=0.038). Moreover, patients with PD-L1 high were associated with poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]=2.877; p=0.001) and PFS (HR=1.843; p=0.021) than those with low PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 low). In subgroup analysis, PD-L1 high patients experienced a poorer PFS (HR=1.926; p=0.044) and OS (HR=2.492; p=0.021) than PD-L1 low cases among advanced stages (III–IV), but this difference was not observed in stage I–II patients. Meanwhile, PD-L1 high was associated with poorer prognosis than PD-L1 low in PR patients (OS, HR=2.253; p=0.037; PFS, HR=1.448; p=0.233). Multivariate analysis revealed that PD-L1 high and advanced stages (III–IV) were adverse independent prognosticators for both PFS (HR PD-L1=2.0; p PD-L1=0.038; HR stage=10.2; p stage<0.001) and OS (HR PD-L1=3.0; p PD-L1=0.011; HR stage=14.3; p stage<0.001).

Conclusion

PD-L1 high might serve as a risk factor for PFS and OS in patients with OCCC. It is possible that immunotherapy targeting PD-L1 pathway could be used in OCCC.

References

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62:10–29.
crossref
2. Kurman RJ, Shih IM. The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34:433–43.
crossref
3. Takano M, Tsuda H, Sugiyama T. Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: is there a role of histology-specific treatment? J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 31:53.
4. Chan JK, Teoh D, Hu JM, Shin JY, Osann K, Kapp DS. Do clear cell ovarian carcinomas have poorer prognosis compared to other epithelial cell types? A study of 1411 clear cell ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 109:370–6.
crossref
5. Ye S, Yang J, You Y, Cao D, Huang H, Wu M, et al. Comparison of clinical characteristic and prognosis between ovarian clear cell carcinoma and serous carcinoma: a 10-year cohort study of chinese patients. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0133498.
crossref
6. Schnack TH, Høgdall E, Nedergaard L, Høgdall C. Demographic clinical and prognostic factors of primary ovarian adenocarcinomas of serous and clear cell histology-a comparative study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016; 26:82–90.
crossref
7. Chen BJ, Chapuy B, Ouyang J, Sun HH, Roemer MG, Xu ML, et al. PD-L1 expression is characteristic of a subset of aggressive B-cell lymphomas and virus-associated malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19:3462–73.
crossref
8. Okazaki T, Honjo T. PD-1 and PD-1 ligands: from discovery to clinical application. Int Immunol. 2007; 19:813–24.
crossref
9. Philips GK, Atkins M. Therapeutic uses of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. Int Immunol. 2015; 27:39–46.
crossref
10. Freeman GJ, Long AJ, Iwai Y, Bourque K, Chernova T, Nishimura H, et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J Exp Med. 2000; 192:1027–34.
crossref
11. Thompson RH, Gillett MD, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Dong H, Webster WS, et al. Costimulatory B7-H1 in renal cell carcinoma patients: Indicator of tumor aggressiveness and potential therapeutic target. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004; 101:17174–9.
crossref
12. Liu J, Hamrouni A, Wolowiec D, Coiteux V, Kuliczkowski K, Hetuin D, et al. Plasma cells from multiple myeloma patients express B7-H1 (PD-L1) and increase expression after stimulation with IFN-{gamma} and TLR ligands via a MyD88-, TRAF6-, and MEK-dependent pathway. Blood. 2007; 110:296–304.
crossref
13. Droeser RA, Hirt C, Viehl CT, Frey DM, Nebiker C, Huber X, et al. Clinical impact of programmed cell death ligand 1 expression in colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49:2233–42.
crossref
14. Lyford-Pike S, Peng S, Young GD, Taube JM, Westra WH, Akpeng B, et al. Evidence for a role of the PD-1: PD-L1 pathway in immune resistance of HPV-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2013; 73:1733–41.
crossref
15. Chen YB, Mu CY, Huang JA. Clinical significance of programmed death-1 ligand-1 expression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a 5-year-follow-up study. Tumori. 2012; 98:751–5.
crossref
16. Shi SJ, Wang LJ, Wang GD, Guo ZY, Wei M, Meng YL, et al. B7-H1 expression is associated with poor prognosis in colorectal carcinoma and regulates the proliferation and invasion of HCT116 colorectal cancer cells. PLoS One. 2013; 8:e76012.
crossref
17. Muenst S, Schaerli AR, Gao F, Däster S, Trella E, Droeser RA, et al. Expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is associated with poor prognosis in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 146:15–24.
crossref
18. Hamanishi J, Mandai M, Iwasaki M, Okazaki T, Tanaka Y, Yamaguchi K, et al. Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes are prognostic factors of human ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104:3360–5.
19. Darb-Esfahani S, Kunze CA, Kulbe H, Sehouli J, Wienert S, Lindner J, et al. Prognostic impact of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in cancer cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in ovarian high grade serous carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016; 7:1486–99.
crossref
20. Webb JR, Milne K, Nelson BH. PD-1 and CD103 are widely coexpressed on prognostically favorable intraepithelial CD8 T cells in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015; 3:926–35.
crossref
21. Böcker W. WHO classification of breast tumors and tumors of the female genital organs: pathology and genetics. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 2002; 86:116–9.
22. Nomi T, Sho M, Akahori T, Hamada K, Kubo A, Kanehiro H, et al. Clinical significance and therapeutic potential of the programmed death-1 ligand/programmed death-1 pathway in human pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13:2151–7.
crossref
23. Abiko K, Mandai M, Hamanishi J, Yoshioka Y, Matsumura N, Baba T, et al. PD-L1 on tumor cells is induced in ascites and promotes peritoneal dissemination of ovarian cancer through CTL dysfunction. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19:1363–74.
crossref
24. Maine CJ, Aziz NH, Chatterjee J, Hayford C, Brewig N, Whilding L, et al. Programmed death ligand-1 over-expression correlates with malignancy and contributes to immune regulation in ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2014; 63:215–24.
crossref
25. Tokito T, Azuma K, Kawahara A, Ishii H, Yamada K, Matsuo N, et al. Predictive relevance of PD-L1 expression combined with CD8+ TIL density in stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2016; 55:7–14.
crossref
26. Zhang Y, Kang S, Shen J, He J, Jiang L, Wang W, et al. Prognostic significance of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) Expression in epithelial-originated cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94:e515.
27. Lussier DM, Johnson JL, Hingorani P, Blattman JN. Combination immunotherapy with α-CTLA-4 and α-PD-L1 antibody blockade prevents immune escape and leads to complete control of metastatic osteosarcoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2015; 3:21.
crossref
28. Tjin EP, Krebbers G, Meijlink KJ, van de Kasteele W, Rosenberg EH, Sanders J, et al. Immune-escape markers in relation to clinical outcome of advanced melanoma patients following immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014; 2:538–46.
crossref
29. Kluger HM, Zito CR, Barr ML, Baine MK, Chiang VL, Sznol M, et al. Characterization of PD-L1 expression and associated T-cell infiltrates in metastatic melanoma samples from variable anatomic sites. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21:3052–60.
crossref
30. Beckers RK, Selinger CI, Vilain R, Madore J, Wilmott JS, Harvey K, et al. Programmed death ligand 1 expression in triple-negative breast cancer is associated with tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and improved outcome. Histopathology. 2016; 69:25–34.
crossref
31. Duraiswamy J, Freeman GJ, Coukos G. Therapeutic PD-1 pathway blockade augments with other modalities of immunotherapy T-cell function to prevent immune decline in ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2013; 73:6900–12.
crossref
32. Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, Hwu WJ, Topalian SL, Hwu P, et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:2455–65.
crossref
33. Hamanishi J, Mandai M, Ikeda T, Minami M, Kawaguchi A, Murayama T, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 antibody, nivolumab, in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:4015–22.
crossref
34. Homicsko K, Coukos G. Targeting programmed cell death 1 in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:3987–9.
crossref

Fig. 1.
The overview of staining intensities of the tissue array is shown (3+. 2+, 1+, and 0+), with an example each (A-D) for a membranous and/or for a cytoplasmic staining pattern.
jgo-28-e77f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Immunohistochemical staining for PD-L1 in OCCC tumor tissues. The staining intensities are shown (0+, 1+, 2+, 3+), with an example each (A-D) for a membranous and/or a cytoplasmic staining pattern. The placenta tissue (E) is used as a positive control for PD-L1 expression. The total number of each staining intensity are shown in (F). OCCC, ovarian clear cell carcinoma; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
jgo-28-e77f2.tif
Fig. 3.
(A, B) PFS and OS curves in patients with OCCC. (C) Patients with PD-L1 high (blue dotted line) showed significantly worse PFS compared with those with low expression (yellow solid line). (D) Patients with PD-L1 low (yellow solid line) presented a better survival outcome than those with PD-L1 high (blue dotted line). OCCC, ovarian clear cell carcinoma; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PD-L1 high, high PD-L1 expression; PD-L1 low, low PD-L1 expression; PFS, progression-free survival.
jgo-28-e77f3.tif
Fig. 4.
PFS and OS curves stratified by FIGO stage between high and low PD-L1 expression (yellow solid lines, PD-L1 low; blue dotted lines, PD-L1 high, respectively). (A) OS curves between high and PD-L1 low in FIGO stage I/II cases. (B) PFS curves between high and PD-L1 low in FIGO stage I/II cases. (C) OS curves between high and PD-L1 low in stage III/IV cases. (D) PFS curves between high and PD-L1 low in stage III/IV cases. Patients with PD-L1 high revealed a worse OS and PFS compared with those with PD-L1 low in stage III/IV cases, with significant differences observed. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; OCCC, ovarian clear cell carcinoma; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PD-L1 high, high PD-L1 expression; PD-L1 low, low PD-L1 expression; PFS, progression-free survival.
jgo-28-e77f4.tif
Fig. 5.
PFS and OS curves stratified by the sensitivity to chemotherapy between high and low PD-L1 expression (yellow solid lines, PD-L1 low; blue dotted lines, PD-L1 high, respectively). (A) OS curves between high and PD-L1 low in PS cases. (B) PFS curves between high and PD-L1 low in PS cases. (C) OS curves between high and PD-L1 low in PR cases. (D) PFS curves between high and PD-L1 low in PR cases. Patients with PD-L1 high revealed a worse OS and PFS compared with those with PD-L1 low in PR cases, with significant differences observed. OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PD-L1 high, high PD-L1 expression; PD-L1 low, low PD-L1 expression; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, platinum-resistant; PS, platinum-sensitive.
jgo-28-e77f5.tif
Table 1.
Univariate analysis of factors associated with PFS and OS
Factors No. Recurrent (%) p-value Death (%) p-value
Age at diagnosis (yr)     0.368   0.848
    ≤55 76 32 (42.1)   24 (31.6)  
    >55 46 23 (50.0)   15 (32.6)  
Family history of malignancy     0.843   0.702
    Yes 30 13 (45.7)   9 (30.0)  
    None 92 42 (43.3)   30 (32.6)  
Menopause     0.753   0.395
    Postmenopausal 75 33 (44.0)   23 (30.7)  
    Premenopausal 47 22 (46.8)   16 (34.0)  
BMI     0.880   0.888
    ≤25 61 27 (44.3)   18 (29.5)  
    >25 61 28 (45.9)   21 (34.4)  
Pretreatment CA125 level (U/mL)     0.002   0.023
    <244 55 18 (32.7)   13 (23.6)  
    ≥244 52 30 (57.7)   19 (36.5)  
Ascites     0.133   0.077
    Negative 68 27 (39.7)   18 (26.5)  
    Positive 49 25 (51.0)   18 (36.7)  
Tumor site     0.001   <0.001
    Unilateral 99 39 (39.4)   26 (26.3)  
    Bilateral 23 16 (69.6)   13 (56.5)  
Tumor volume (cm)     0.139   0.038
    <10 49 26 (53.1)   21 (42.9)  
    ≥10 73 29 (39.7)   18 (24.7)  
Tumor stage     <0.001   <0.001
    I 57 10 (17.5)   5 (7.9)  
    II 19 8 (42.1)   6 (30.0)  
    III 36 28 (77.8)   25 (58.1)  
    IV 10 9 (90.0)   8 (80.0)  
Residual disease (cm)     <0.001   <0.001
    R0 98 36 (36.7)   23 (23.5)  
    ≤1 18 13 (72.2)   10 (55.6)  
    >1 6 6 (100.0)   6 (100.0)  
Sensitivity to chemotherapy     <0.001   <0.001
    Sensitive 81 14 (17.3)   7 (8.6)  
    Insensitive 40 40 (100)   31 (77.5)  
PD-L1 expression     0.021   0.001
    Low 68 25 (36.8)   13 (19.1)  
    High 54 30 (55.6)   26 (48.1)  

BMI, body mass index; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; R0, no visible residual disease.

Table 2.
Correlations between the expression of PD-L1 and clinicopathological characteristics in OCCCs
Variables Tumoral PD-L1 expression
Low expression High expression p-value
Age (yr)     0.260
    ≤55 39 (57.4) 37 (68.5)  
    >55 29 (42.6) 17 (31.5)  
Stage     0.020
    Early (I–II) 48 (70.6) 27 (50.0)  
    Advanced (III–IV) 20 (29.4) 27 (50.0)  
BMI     0.068
    ≤25 29 (42.6) 32 (59.3)  
    >25 39 (57.4) 22 (40.7)  
Menopause status     0.264
    Premenopausal 23 (33.8) 24 (44.4)  
    Postmenopausal 45 (66.2) 30 (55.6)  
Pretreatment CA125 (U/mL)     0.699
    <244 32 (53.3) 23 (48.9)  
    ≥244 28 (46.7) 24 (51.1)  
Ascitic fluid     0.016
    Negative 45 (68.2) 23 (45.1)  
    Positive 21 (31.8) 28 (54.9)  
Tumor site     0.245
    Unilateral 58 (85.3) 41 (75.9)  
    Bilateral 10 (14.7) 13 (24.1)  
Tumor volume (cm)     0.854
    <10 28 (41.2) 21 (38.9)  
    ≥10 40 (58.8) 33 (61.1)  
Sensitivity to chemotherapy     0.045
    Sensitive 50 (74.6) 31 (57.4)  
    Insensitive 17 (25.4) 23 (42.6)  
Recurrence status     0.038
    Relapse 25 (36.8) 30 (55.6)  
    No relapse 43 (63.2) 24 (44.4)  

BMI, body mass index; OCCC, ovarian clear cell carcinoma; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.

Table 3.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis with PFS and OS as endpoint
Factor PFS OS
HR 95% CI p-value HR 95% CI p-value
Pretreatment serum CA125 level (< 244 U/mL vs. ≥ 244 U/mL) 0.922 0.457–1.860 0.820 0.578 0.259–1.292 0.182
Ascitic fluid (positive vs. negative) 1.110 0.883–3.566 0.107 1.111 0.511–2.414 0.790
FIGO stage (advanced vs. early) 10.165 4.513–22.894 <0.001 14.323 4.744–43.240 <0.001
PD-L1 expression (high vs. low) 1.970 1.039–3.737 0.038 3.032 1.285–7.153 0.011
Tumor volume (<10 cm vs. ≥10 cm) 0.928 0.069–1.248 0.621 0.752 0.513–1.102 0.144
Residual disease (>1 cm vs. R0, ≤1 cm) 1.063 0.566–1.999 0.849 1.767 0.824–3.787 0.143

CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1;

TOOLS
Similar articles