Prognostic value of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in ovarian clear cell carcinoma

Jun Zhu; Hao Wen; Rui Bi; Yong Wu; Xiaohua Wu

doi:10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e77

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

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

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

Original Article

J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28(6):e77.

Published online: 4 November 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e77

Prognostic value of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in ovarian clear cell carcinoma

Jun Zhu^1,², Hao Wen^1,², Rui Bi³, Yong Wu³, Xiaohua Wu^1,^2,

¹Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China

²Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

³Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China

Correspondence to Xiaohua Wu Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong An Road, Shanghai 200032, China. E-mail: docwuxh@yahoo.com

Received 15 June 2017 Revised 23 June 2017 Accepted 23 July 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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.

Keywords: Ovarian Neoplasms, Adenocarcinoma, Clear Cell, Antigens, CD274, Prognosis

References

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62:10–29.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

8. Okazaki T, Honjo T. PD-1 and PD-1 ligands: from discovery to clinical application. Int Immunol. 2007; 19:813–24.

9. Philips GK, Atkins M. Therapeutic uses of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. Int Immunol. 2015; 27:39–46.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

34. Homicsko K, Coukos G. Targeting programmed cell death 1 in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:3987–9.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
Variables	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
Factor	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