Loading…
Assessment of PD‐L1 Expression on Circulating Tumor Cells for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cancer Receiving PD‐1/PD‐L1 Blockade Therapies
Background Programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) and programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) blockade immunotherapies have changed the landscape of cancer therapy. However, the main limitation of these therapies is the lack of definitively predictive biomarkers to predict treatment response. Whether PD‐L1 expression...
Saved in:
Published in: | The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio) Ohio), 2021-12, Vol.26 (12), p.e2227-e2238 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Background
Programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) and programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) blockade immunotherapies have changed the landscape of cancer therapy. However, the main limitation of these therapies is the lack of definitively predictive biomarkers to predict treatment response. Whether PD‐L1 expression on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is associated with the clinical outcomes of immunotherapy remains to be extensively investigated.
Materials and Methods
One hundred fifty‐five patients with different advanced cancers were enrolled in this study and treated with anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 monoclonal antibodies. Using the Pep@MNPs method, CTCs were isolated and enumerated. The PD‐L1 expression levels were analyzed by an immunofluorescence assay for semiquantitative assessment with four categories (negative, low, medium, and high).
Results
Prior to immunotherapy, 81.93% (127/155) of patients had PD‐L1‐positive CTCs, and 71.61% (111/155) had at least one PD‐L1‐high CTC. The group with PD‐L1‐positive CTCs had a higher disease control rate (DCR) (71.56%, 91/127), with a DCR of only 39.29% (11/28) for the remaining individuals (p = .001). The objective response rate and DCR in PD‐L1‐high patients were higher than those in the other patients (32.44% vs. 13.64%, p = .018 and 75.68% vs. 40.91%, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1083-7159 1549-490X |
DOI: | 10.1002/onco.13981 |