Search

Background: Studies evaluating the prognostic significance of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited and remain controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted in order to evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression in CRC patients.Methods: A comprehensive search was performed against the Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data were extracted with name of the first author, year of publication, country of origin, tumor type, number of cases, staining method, cut-off values, PD-L1 positive expression, clinicopathological parameters, outcome, and quality assessment score, and statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager Version 5.3 (Revman the Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, England) and STATA version 14 (Stata Corporation; College Station, TX, USA).Results: Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis, in which the pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed that PD-L1 expression in tumor cells was significantly associated with a poor overall survival (HR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.05–2.13, P = 0.03). The pooled HR for disease-free survival (DFS) indicated that PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with shorter DFS (HR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.40–4.75, P = 0.002). The pooled odds ratios (ORs) showed that PD-L1 expression was associated with poor differentiation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 1.37–8.77, P = 0.008) and right colon cancer (OR = 2.38, 95% CI 1.57–3.60, P < 0.0001). However, the expression of PD-L1 was independent of gender, age, tumor size, tumor stage, lymph node metastasis, and tumor-node metastasis stage.Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicated that a high level of PD-L1 expression might be a biomarker for a poor prognosis in CRC patients. This information may be helpful for clinicians to stratify CRC patients for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, particularly patients with microsatellite instability high (MSI-H).

Background: Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression has been shown to correlate with poor prognosis in diverse human cancers. However, limited data exist on the prognostic and clinicopathologic significance of PD-L1 expression in prostate cancers (PCa), and the curative effect of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy remains controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic and clinicopathologic value of PD-L1 in PCa.Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases up to July 21st, 2018. Pooled prevalence of PD-L1 in PCa was calculated using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation by R software version 3.5.0. The data from the studies were examined by a meta-analysis using Review Manager software 5.3 to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the prognostic and clinicopathologic value of PD-L1 in PCa. Heterogeneity was tested by the Chi-squared test and I2 statistic.Results: Five studies with 2,272 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of PD-L1 in PCa was 35% (95% CI 0.32 to 0.37). Both PD-L1 expression (HR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.27; p < 0.00001) and PD-L1 DNA methylation (HR = 2.23; 95% CI 1.51 to 3.29; p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with poor biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCR-FS). PD-L1 tended to have high expression levels in high Gleason score cases (OR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.03; P = 0.002) and androgen receptor-positive cases (OR = 2.42, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.50; P = 0.005). However, PD-L1 had relatively weak correlation with age, pathologic stage, lymph node metastasis and preoperative PSA level.Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms the negative prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression and mPD-L1 in PCa patients. Additionally, PD-L1 has a statistically significant correlation with Gleason score and androgen receptor status, while the correlations with age, pathologic stage, lymph node metastasis, and preoperative PSA level were not statistically significant. However, the number of included studies is too small to make the conclusions more convincing, so more retrospective large-cohort studies are expected for the further confirmation of these findings.