Cargando…

Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma

The expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) is a biomarker for immunotherapy, but approved detection method is absent in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Here, we performed three methods including immunohistochemistry (IHC) (clone SP263 and SP142), RNAscope, and fluorescence in si...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Sixia, Nong, Lin, Liang, Li, Zheng, Yalin, Wang, Wei, Liu, Jumei, Li, Dong, Li, Xin, Wang, Ying, Zhang, Bo, Li, Ting
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6639200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31150165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2316
_version_ 1783436418029191168
author Huang, Sixia
Nong, Lin
Liang, Li
Zheng, Yalin
Wang, Wei
Liu, Jumei
Li, Dong
Li, Xin
Wang, Ying
Zhang, Bo
Li, Ting
author_facet Huang, Sixia
Nong, Lin
Liang, Li
Zheng, Yalin
Wang, Wei
Liu, Jumei
Li, Dong
Li, Xin
Wang, Ying
Zhang, Bo
Li, Ting
author_sort Huang, Sixia
collection PubMed
description The expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) is a biomarker for immunotherapy, but approved detection method is absent in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Here, we performed three methods including immunohistochemistry (IHC) (clone SP263 and SP142), RNAscope, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to evaluate PD‐L1 status on a cohort of DLBCL including 94 of DLBCL‐NOS, 25 of primary mediastinal large B‐cell lymphoma (PMBCL) and 7 of double‐hit lymphoma (DHL). SP263 with 25% for immune cell (IC) or combined cell and SP142 with 10% for tumor cell (TC), 20% for both of IC and combined cell were proved to have corresponding survival prognostic. Combined(+) showed comparable prognostic value with TC(+) and IC(+). SP263 and SP142 showed strong concordance (k = 0.788) with combined(+) rates of 33.3% (42/126) and 34.9% (44/126), respectively. In DLBCL‐NOS, TC(+) by SP263 preferred to non‐GCB and immunoblastic variant DLBCL‐NOS (P = 0.029 and P = 0.004). Combined(+) (SP263 and SP142) were associated with more than one extranodal site involved (P = 0.006, P = 0.042), higher ECOG PS scores (P = 0.001, P < 0.001), high IPI risk (P = 0.012, P = 0.005), and poor treatment response (P = 0.095, P = 0.002). IC(+) by SP263 and SP142 were both independent risk factors (P = 0.027, P = 0.037). 9p24.1 locus amplification and gain were identified in 4.3% and 7.6% DLBCL‐NOS and indicated shorter overall survival (P = 0.004). Positive rate of PD‐L1 by RNAscope was 36.5%, while no clinical significance shown. PD‐L1 positive rates were all higher in PMBCL and DHL than in DLBCL‐NOS by SP263, SP142, RNAscope, and FISH (P = 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, combined PD‐L1 expression by IHC was potentially reliable and convenient as a predicting biomarker. SP263 staining was easier to evaluate and recognized more PD‐L1‐stained cells, but SP142 presented a better prognostic indicator. FISH and RNAscope could be used as supplementary assays. PMBCL itself was a sensitive cohort for immunotherapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6639200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66392002019-07-29 Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma Huang, Sixia Nong, Lin Liang, Li Zheng, Yalin Wang, Wei Liu, Jumei Li, Dong Li, Xin Wang, Ying Zhang, Bo Li, Ting Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research The expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) is a biomarker for immunotherapy, but approved detection method is absent in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Here, we performed three methods including immunohistochemistry (IHC) (clone SP263 and SP142), RNAscope, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to evaluate PD‐L1 status on a cohort of DLBCL including 94 of DLBCL‐NOS, 25 of primary mediastinal large B‐cell lymphoma (PMBCL) and 7 of double‐hit lymphoma (DHL). SP263 with 25% for immune cell (IC) or combined cell and SP142 with 10% for tumor cell (TC), 20% for both of IC and combined cell were proved to have corresponding survival prognostic. Combined(+) showed comparable prognostic value with TC(+) and IC(+). SP263 and SP142 showed strong concordance (k = 0.788) with combined(+) rates of 33.3% (42/126) and 34.9% (44/126), respectively. In DLBCL‐NOS, TC(+) by SP263 preferred to non‐GCB and immunoblastic variant DLBCL‐NOS (P = 0.029 and P = 0.004). Combined(+) (SP263 and SP142) were associated with more than one extranodal site involved (P = 0.006, P = 0.042), higher ECOG PS scores (P = 0.001, P < 0.001), high IPI risk (P = 0.012, P = 0.005), and poor treatment response (P = 0.095, P = 0.002). IC(+) by SP263 and SP142 were both independent risk factors (P = 0.027, P = 0.037). 9p24.1 locus amplification and gain were identified in 4.3% and 7.6% DLBCL‐NOS and indicated shorter overall survival (P = 0.004). Positive rate of PD‐L1 by RNAscope was 36.5%, while no clinical significance shown. PD‐L1 positive rates were all higher in PMBCL and DHL than in DLBCL‐NOS by SP263, SP142, RNAscope, and FISH (P = 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, combined PD‐L1 expression by IHC was potentially reliable and convenient as a predicting biomarker. SP263 staining was easier to evaluate and recognized more PD‐L1‐stained cells, but SP142 presented a better prognostic indicator. FISH and RNAscope could be used as supplementary assays. PMBCL itself was a sensitive cohort for immunotherapy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6639200/ /pubmed/31150165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2316 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Huang, Sixia
Nong, Lin
Liang, Li
Zheng, Yalin
Wang, Wei
Liu, Jumei
Li, Dong
Li, Xin
Wang, Ying
Zhang, Bo
Li, Ting
Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title_full Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title_fullStr Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title_short Comparison of PD‐L1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma
title_sort comparison of pd‐l1 detection assays and corresponding significance in evaluation of diffuse large b‐cell lymphoma
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6639200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31150165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2316
work_keys_str_mv AT huangsixia comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT nonglin comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT liangli comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT zhengyalin comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT wangwei comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT liujumei comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT lidong comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT lixin comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT wangying comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT zhangbo comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma
AT liting comparisonofpdl1detectionassaysandcorrespondingsignificanceinevaluationofdiffuselargebcelllymphoma