Differential Characteristics and Prognosis of PD-L1–Positive Endometrial Carcinomas: A Retrospective Chart Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design, Setting, and Participants
2.2. Immunohistochemistry
2.3. Statistical Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pardoll, D.M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sun, C.; Mezzadra, R.; Schumacher, T.N. Regulation and Function of the PD-L1 Checkpoint. Immunity 2018, 48, 434–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iwai, Y.; Ishida, M.; Tanaka, Y.; Okazaki, T.; Honjo, T.; Minato, N. Involvement of PD-L1 on tumor cells in the escape from host immune system and tumor immunotherapy by PD-L1 blockade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12293–12297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, A.A.; Patel, V.G. The role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker: An analysis of all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J. Immunother. Cancer 2019, 7, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, S.; Stein, J.E.; Rimm, D.L.; Wang, D.W.; Bell, J.M.; Johnson, D.B.; Sosman, J.A.; Schalper, K.A.; Anders, R.A.; Wang, H.; et al. Comparison of Biomarker Modalities for Predicting Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Blockade: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 1195–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passarello, K.; Kurian, S.; Villanueva, V. Endometrial Cancer: An Overview of Pathophysiology, Management, and Care. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2019, 35, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinelli, O.; Annibali, D.; Aguzzi, C.; Tuyaerts, S.; Amant, F.; Morelli, M.B.; Santoni, G.; Amantini, C.; Maggi, F.; Nabissi, M. The Controversial Role of PD-1 and Its Ligands in Gynecological Malignancies. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ott, P.A.; Bang, Y.J.; Berton-Rigaud, D.; Elez, E.; Pishvaian, M.J.; Rugo, H.S.; Puzanov, I.; Mehnert, J.M.; Aung, K.L.; Lopez, J.; et al. Safety and Antitumor Activity of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Programmed Death Ligand 1-Positive Endometrial Cancer: Results From the KEYNOTE-028 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2535–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konstantinopoulos, P.A.; Luo, W.; Liu, J.F.; Gulhan, D.C.; Krasner, C.; Ishizuka, J.J.; Gockley, A.A.; Buss, M.; Growdon, W.B.; Crowe, H.; et al. Phase II Study of Avelumab in Patients With Mismatch Repair Deficient and Mismatch Repair Proficient Recurrent/Persistent Endometrial Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 2786–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fleming, G.F.; Emens, L.A.; Eder, J.P.; Hamilton, E.P.; Liu, J.F.; Liu, B.; Molinero, L.; Fasso, M.; O’Hear, C.; Braiteh, F.S. Clinical activity, safety and biomarker results from a phase Ia study of atezolizumab (atezo) in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (rEC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Razeq, H.; Attiga, F.; Mansour, A. Cancer care in Jordan. Hematol. Oncol. Stem Cell Ther. 2015, 8, 64–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, Z.; Joehlin-Price, A.S.; Rhoades, J.; Ayoola-Adeola, M.; Miller, K.; Parwani, A.V.; Backes, F.J.; Felix, A.S.; Suarez, A.A. Programmed Death Ligand 1 Expression Among 700 Consecutive Endometrial Cancers: Strong Association With Mismatch Repair Protein Deficiency. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2018, 28, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haraldsdottir, S.; Hampel, H.; Tomsic, J.; Frankel, W.L.; Pearlman, R.; de la Chapelle, A.; Pritchard, C.C. Colon and endometrial cancers with mismatch repair deficiency can arise from somatic, rather than germline, mutations. Gastroenterology 2014, 147, 1308–1316.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pasanen, A.; Loukovaara, M.; Bützow, R. Clinicopathological significance of deficient DNA mismatch repair and MLH1 promoter methylation in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. Mod. Pathol. 2020, 33, 1443–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engerud, H.; Berg, H.F.; Myrvold, M.; Halle, M.K.; Bjorge, L.; Haldorsen, I.S.; Hoivik, E.A.; Trovik, J.; Krakstad, C. High degree of heterogeneity of PD-L1 and PD-1 from primary to metastatic endometrial cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 157, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sloan, E.A.; Ring, K.L.; Willis, B.C.; Modesitt, S.C.; Mills, A.M. PD-L1 Expression in Mismatch Repair-deficient Endometrial Carcinomas, Including Lynch Syndrome-associated and MLH1 Promoter Hypermethylated Tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2017, 41, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, Z.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Mei, J.; Liu, L.; Yang, S.; Li, H.; Zhou, L.; You, Z. Expression of PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 is associated with differentiation status and histological type of endometrial cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2016, 12, 944–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pasanen, A.; Ahvenainen, T.; Pellinen, T.; Vahteristo, P.; Loukovaara, M.; Bützow, R. PD-L1 Expression in Endometrial Carcinoma Cells and Intratumoral Immune Cells: Differences Across Histologic and TCGA-based Molecular Subgroups. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2020, 44, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kir, G.; Soylemez, T.; Olgun, Z.C.; Aydin, A.; McCluggage, W.G. Correlation of PD-L1 expression with immunohistochemically determined molecular profile in endometrial carcinomas. Virchows Arch. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sungu, N.; Yildirim, M.; Desdicioglu, R.; Aydoğdu, Ö.B.; Kiliçarslan, A.; Tatli Doğan, H.; Kiliç Yazgan, A.; Akyol, M.; Erdoğan, F. Expression of Immunomodulatory Molecules PD-1, PD-L1, and PD-L2, and their Relationship with Clinicopathologic Characteristics in Endometrial Cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 2019, 38, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, G.S.; Pink, A.; Lee, S.; Han, G.; Morris, D.; Ogilvie, T.; Duggan, M.A.; Köbel, M. MMR deficiency is common in high-grade endometrioid carcinomas and is associated with an unfavorable outcome. Gynecol. Oncol. 2013, 131, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, S.; Minaguchi, T.; Xu, C.; Qi, N.; Itagaki, H.; Shikama, A.; Tasaka, N.; Akiyama, A.; Sakurai, M.; Ochi, H.; et al. PD-L1 and CD4 are independent prognostic factors for overall survival in endometrial carcinomas. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kucukgoz Gulec, U.; Kilic Bagir, E.; Paydas, S.; Guzel, A.B.; Gumurdulu, D.; Vardar, M.A. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expressions in type 2 endometrial cancer. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2019, 300, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, L.; Li, Y.; Luo, R.; Xu, J.; Feng, J.; Wang, M. Prognostic and Clinicopathological Role of PD-L1 in Endometrial Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunnström, H.; Johansson, A.; Westbom-Fremer, S.; Backman, M.; Djureinovic, D.; Patthey, A.; Isaksson-Mettävainio, M.; Gulyas, M.; Micke, P. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in clinical diagnostics of lung cancer: Inter-pathologist variability is higher than assay variability. Mod. Pathol. 2017, 30, 1411–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Antibody | Clone | Retrieval | Concentration | Company |
---|---|---|---|---|
MLH1 | M1 | Heat 90 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
PMS2 | EPR3947 | Heat 90 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
MSH2 | G219-1129 | Heat 60 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
MSH6 | 44 | Heat 60 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
p53 | DO7 | Heat 64 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
PD-L1 | SP263 | Heat 64 | Ready-to-use | Roche |
Characteristic | Total, n = 231 (%) | PD-L1–Negative, n = 182 (%) | PD-L1–Positive, n = 49 (%) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age group at definitive surgery | 0.87 | |||
≤65 years | 92 (39.8) | 72 (39.6) | 20 (40.8) | |
>65 years | 139 (60.2) | 110 (60.4) | 29 (59.2) | |
Nationality | 0.84 | |||
Jordanian | 200 (86.6) | 158 (86.8) | 42 (85.7) | |
Other | 31 (13.4) | 24 (13.2) | 7 (14.3) | |
Family history of cancer | 0.98 | |||
No family history | 133 (57.6) | 108 (59.3) | 25 (51.0) | |
Second-degree relative | 10 (4.3) | 8 (4.4) | 2 (4.1) | |
First-degree relative | 45 (19.5) | 36 (19.8) | 9 (18.4) | |
Missing | 43 (18.6) | 30 (16.5) | 13 (26.5) | |
Histopathology | 0.32 | |||
Endometrioid adenocarcinoma | 156 (68.1) | 126 (69.2) | 30 (61.2) | |
Grade I | 52 (33.3) | 46 (36.5) | 6 (20.0) | |
Grade II | 83 (53.2) | 68 (54.0) | 15 (50.0) | |
Grade III | 21 (13.5) | 12 (9.5) | 9 (30.0) | |
Serous carcinoma | 33 (14.4) | 24 (13.2) | 9 (18.4) | |
Carcinosarcoma | 17 (7.4) | 15 (8.2) | 2 (4.1) | |
Undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinoma | 9 (3.9) | 7 (3.8) | 4 (8.2) | |
Mixed cell adenocarcinoma | 10 (4.3) | 6 (3.3) | 4 (8.2) | |
Clear cell carcinoma | 4 (1.7) | 4 (2.2) | 0 (0) | |
Bokhman type | 0.29 | |||
I | 156 (67.5) | 126 (69.2) | 30 (61.2) | |
II | 75 (32.5) | 56 (30.8) | 19 (38.8) | |
Chemotherapy | 0.062 | |||
No | 166 (71.9) | 136 (74.7) | 30 (61.2) | |
Yes | 65 (28.1) | 46 (25.3) | 19 (38.8) | |
Radiotherapy | 0.28 | |||
No | 61 (26.4) | 51 (28) | 10 (20.4) | |
Yes | 170 (73.6) | 131 (72) | 39 (79.6) | |
FIGO stage | 0.78 | |||
I | 121 (52.4) | 95 (52.2) | 26 (53.1) | |
II | 46 (19.9) | 38 (20.9) | 8 (16.3) | |
III | 42 (18.2) | 33 (18.1) | 9 (18.4) | |
IV | 21 (9.1) | 15 (8.2) | 6 (12.2) | |
Missing | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.5) | 0 (0) | |
Distant metastasis | 0.57 | |||
No | 199 (86.1) | 158 (86.8) | 41 (83.7) | |
Yes | 32 (13.9) | 24 (13.2) | 8 (16.3) | |
Relapse | 0.96 | |||
No | 169 (73.2) | 133 (73.1) | 36 (73.5) | |
Yes | 62 (26.8) | 49 (26.9) | 13 (26.5) | |
MLH1/PMS2 expression | 0.044 | |||
Retained | 176 (76.2) | 144 (79.1) | 32 (65.3) | |
Lost | 55 (23.8) | 38 (20.9) | 17 (34.7) | |
Solitary PMS2 loss | 0.94 | |||
No | 222 (96.1) | 175 (96.2) | 47 (95.9) | |
Yes | 9 (3.9) | 7 (3.8) | 2 (4.1) | |
MSH2/MSH6 expression | 0.59 | |||
Retained | 216 (93.5) | 171 (94.0) | 45 (91.8) | |
Lost | 15 (6.5) | 11 (6.0) | 4 (8.2) | |
Solitary MSH6 loss | 0.55 | |||
No | 212 (91.8) | 166 (91.2) | 46 (93.9) | |
Yes | 19 (8.2) | 16 (8.8) | 3 (6.1) | |
MMR status | 0.090 | |||
Proficient | 142 (61.5) | 117 (64.3) | 25 (51.0) | |
Deficient | 89 (38.5) | 65 (35.7) | 24 (49.0) | |
p53 status | 0.78 | |||
Wild-type | 122 (52.8) | 96 (52.7) | 26 (53.1) | |
Mutant | 106 (45.9) | 85 (46.7) | 21 (42.9) | |
Missing | 3 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | 2 (4.1) |
Characteristic | Kaplan–Meier Analysis | Cox Regression | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1-Year OS Rate, % (95% CI) | 5-Year OS Rate, % (95% CI) | p-Value | HR (95% CI) | p-Value | |
Age group at definitive surgery | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
≤65 years | 93.5 (89.5–97.7) | 73.3 (66.3–81.0) | Reference | ||
>65 years | 80.4 (72.7–89.0) | 50.6 (41.3–62.0) | 2.44 (1.56–3.82) | ||
Bokhman type | <0.001 | 0.056 | |||
I | 94.9 (91.5–98.4) | 77.4 (71.1–84.3) | Reference | ||
II | 74.7 (65.4–85.2) | 36.8 (27.3–49.7) | 1.77 (0.98–3.17) | ||
Chemotherapy | <0.001 | 0.49 | |||
No | 90.4 (86.0–95.0) | 72.1 (65.5–79.3) | Reference | ||
Yes | 83.1 (74.4–92.7) | 44.3 (33.7–58.3) | 0.81 (0.45–1.46) | ||
Radiotherapy | 0.13 | 0.005 | |||
No | 70.5 (59.9–82.9) | 55.6 (44.3–69.6) | Reference | ||
Yes | 94.7 (91.4–98.1) | 67.4 (60.7–74.9) | 0.47 (0.28–0.80) | ||
Distant metastasis | <0.001 | 0.001 | |||
No | 95.0 (92.0–98.1) | 71.1 (65.0–77.7) | Reference | ||
Yes | 46.9 (32.4–67.8) | 21.9 (11.4–42.1) | 2.48 (1.44–4.26) | ||
Relapse | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
No | 92.9 (89.1–96.9) | 82.1 (76.5–88.1) | Reference | ||
Yes | 75.8 (65.9–87.3) | 16.1 (9.1–28.5) | 7.3 (4.5–11.9) | ||
MMR status | 0.28 | 0.073 | |||
Proficient | 87.3 (82.0–93.0) | 61.6 (54.1–70.2) | Reference | ||
Deficient | 89.9 (83.8–96.4) | 68.5 (59.5–78.9) | 1.70 (0.95–3.04) | ||
p53 status 1 | <0.001 | 0.013 | |||
Wild-type | 95.1 (91.3–99.0) | 77.7 (70.6–85.5) | Reference | ||
Mutant | 80.2 (72.9–88.1) | 47.8 (39.1–58.4) | 2.08 (1.16–3.73) | ||
PD-L1 expression | 0.92 | 0.54 | |||
Negative | 86.8 (82.0–91.9) | 64.7 (58.1–72.0) | Reference | ||
Positive | 93.9 (87.4–100.0) | 62.7 (50.4–78.0) | 0.84 (0.49–1.45) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Amarin, J.Z.; Mansour, R.; Al-Ghnimat, S.; Al-Hussaini, M. Differential Characteristics and Prognosis of PD-L1–Positive Endometrial Carcinomas: A Retrospective Chart Review. Life 2021, 11, 1047. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11101047
Amarin JZ, Mansour R, Al-Ghnimat S, Al-Hussaini M. Differential Characteristics and Prognosis of PD-L1–Positive Endometrial Carcinomas: A Retrospective Chart Review. Life. 2021; 11(10):1047. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11101047
Chicago/Turabian StyleAmarin, Justin Z., Razan Mansour, Sura Al-Ghnimat, and Maysa Al-Hussaini. 2021. "Differential Characteristics and Prognosis of PD-L1–Positive Endometrial Carcinomas: A Retrospective Chart Review" Life 11, no. 10: 1047. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11101047