PD-L1 expression is an unfavourable prognostic indicator in Asian renal cell carcinomas

Joe Yeong,Zitong Zhao,Jeffrey Chun Tatt Lim,Huihua Li,Aye Aye Thike,Valerie Cui Yun Koh,Bin Tean Teh,Ravindran Kanesvaran,Chee Keong Toh,Puay Hoon Tan,Li Yan Khor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206092
Abstract:Background/aims: The programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab, has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, the understanding of the expression and distribution of PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) in the tumour immune microenvironment and its prognostic role in an Asian cohort is limited. Our group investigated PD-L1 protein expression in a cohort of Asian patients with RCC of mixed ethnicity, using two commercially available antibody clones. Methods: E1L3N and SP263 anti-PD-L1 clones were used to categorise RCCs of various histological subtypes, diagnosed at our institution between 1995 and 2008, into PD-L1-positive or PD-L1-negative groups, based on a 1% Tumour Proportion Score (TPS) cut-off. Results: In total, 267 (83%) clear cell (cc)RCC and 55 (17%) non-ccRCC cases were studied. Overall PD-L1 protein expression rates for the entire cohort were 13% and 8% for the E1L3N and SP263 clones, respectively. Patients bearing PD-L1-positive tumours experienced significantly decreased disease-free survival (DFS; E1L3N: p=0.01; SP263: p=0.03) but not overall survival, compared with those with PD-L1-negative tumours. Multivariate survival analysis further confirmed the results of the E1L3N clone (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.13, p=0.02), but not SP263, after adjusting for pathological stage, histological subtype and grade. The addition of PD-L1 (E1L3N) TPS to clinicopathological features significantly increased the prognostic value for DFS (∆LRχ2=5.25; p=0.022), compared with clinicopathological features alone. Conclusions: PD-L1 protein expression was associated with an unfavourable prognosis in our study cohort. PD-L1 (E1L3N) expression was an independent prognostic indicator of clinical outcome in all RCCs when using a 1% cut-off.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?