Cargando…

PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view

Tumours with high somatic mutation rates escape immune surveillance by upregulating receptors and ligands such as programmed death receptor-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1). Checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) provide encouraging therapeutic results in non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and may soon be used i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Hutarew, Georg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5165031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28058063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12254-016-0292-2
_version_ 1782482769783291904
author Hutarew, Georg
author_facet Hutarew, Georg
author_sort Hutarew, Georg
collection PubMed
description Tumours with high somatic mutation rates escape immune surveillance by upregulating receptors and ligands such as programmed death receptor-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1). Checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) provide encouraging therapeutic results in non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and may soon be used in 2nd or 1st line therapy. Currently PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression assessed on tumour cells is used as a predictive biomarker, since better patient outcomes are often, but not always associated with increased tumour cell PD-L1 IHC expression. However pre-analytical variables, different anti-PD-L1 clones used on different staining platforms, different specimens types, as well as intra- and interobserver variability influence the results. We will only understand PD-L1 expression on tumour cells if we accept that PD-L1 is an inducible pathophysiological factor with variable levels of PD-L1 expression depending on the immunological status. Should we test PD-L1 during initial diagnostic work up before, or at the point when immune checkpoint therapy is considered? Taking all arguments into account the value of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker is questionable. Other predictive biomarkers such as high mutation burden, mRNA expression, neo-antigens and the diversity of tumour antigen-specific T cells should be evaluated in the future. Here we review results presented in 30 journal articles and three reviews covering this topic in the last 3 years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5165031
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51650312017-01-03 PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view Hutarew, Georg Memo Short Review Tumours with high somatic mutation rates escape immune surveillance by upregulating receptors and ligands such as programmed death receptor-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1). Checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) provide encouraging therapeutic results in non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and may soon be used in 2nd or 1st line therapy. Currently PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression assessed on tumour cells is used as a predictive biomarker, since better patient outcomes are often, but not always associated with increased tumour cell PD-L1 IHC expression. However pre-analytical variables, different anti-PD-L1 clones used on different staining platforms, different specimens types, as well as intra- and interobserver variability influence the results. We will only understand PD-L1 expression on tumour cells if we accept that PD-L1 is an inducible pathophysiological factor with variable levels of PD-L1 expression depending on the immunological status. Should we test PD-L1 during initial diagnostic work up before, or at the point when immune checkpoint therapy is considered? Taking all arguments into account the value of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker is questionable. Other predictive biomarkers such as high mutation burden, mRNA expression, neo-antigens and the diversity of tumour antigen-specific T cells should be evaluated in the future. Here we review results presented in 30 journal articles and three reviews covering this topic in the last 3 years. Springer Vienna 2016-10-28 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5165031/ /pubmed/28058063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12254-016-0292-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Short Review
Hutarew, Georg
PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title_full PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title_fullStr PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title_full_unstemmed PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title_short PD-L1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? From a pathologist’s point of view
title_sort pd-l1 testing, fit for routine evaluation? from a pathologist’s point of view
topic Short Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5165031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28058063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12254-016-0292-2
work_keys_str_mv AT hutarewgeorg pdl1testingfitforroutineevaluationfromapathologistspointofview