Prognostic significance of Pd-l1 in solid tumor: An updated meta-analysis

Qianqian Wang,Fang Liu,Lei Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006369

IF: 1.6

2017-01-01

Medicine

Abstract:Background: An increasing number of studies have examined the ability of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) to function as a marker for tumor prognosis. However, whether PD-L1 expression is a prognostic factor for the poor outcomes in many human cancers remains controversial. This study aims to investigate the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression through a meta-analysis update of 60 studies. Methods: The studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, and were assessed by further quality evaluation. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for total and stratified analyses were calculated to investigate the association between the PD-L1 expression and the overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) or progressionfree survivals (PFS) of cancer patients. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated. Results: The results indicated that PD-L1 overexpression can predict a poor OS (HR=1.58, 95% CI=1.38-1.81, P<.000) and DFS/PFS (HR=1.72, 95% CI=1.26-2.33, P=.001). Subgroup analyses showed that PD-L1 overexpression was significantly related to the poor OS in patients with breast (HR=1.98, 95% CI=1.15-3.41, P=.014), urothelial (HR=2.24, 95% CI=1.61-3.12, P<.000), renal (HR=3.30, 95% CI=2.23-4.86, P<.000), and gastric cancers (HR=1.56, 95% CI=1.02-2.37, P=.040). Furthermore, PD-L1 overexpresion was significantly associated with poor DFS/PFS in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (HR=1.72, 95% CI=1.21-2.46, P=.003), melanoma (HR=3.39, 95% CI=2.02-5.69, P<.000), and renal carcinoma, (HR=5.04, 95% CI=2.87-8.86, P<.000). The adverse prognostic impact of PD-L1 was observed in patients of different ethnicities. Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest the correlation of PD-L1 overexpression with worse OS in patients with solid tumors. However, the correlations differed according to tumor types. Abbreviations: CCRCC = clear cell renal cell carcinoma, CIs = confidence intervals, DE = data extrapolation, DFS = disease-free survivals, EFS = event-free survival, F = female, HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma, HRs = hazard ratio, IHC = immunohistochemistry, M = male, MPM = malignant pleural mesothelioma, No. = number, NR = not reported, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer, OS = overall survivals, disease-free survivals, progression-free survivals, OSCC = oral squamous cell carcinoma, PD-L1 = programmed death-ligand 1, PFS = progression-free survivals, PRCC = papillary renal cell carcinoma, TET = thymic epithelial tumor.