4.3 Article

Prognostic significance of programmed death-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 expression in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 7, 期 21, 页码 30772-30780

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8956

关键词

esophageal cancer; PD-1; PD-L1; immunochemistry; prognosis

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [81472203]
  2. Major Science and Technology Project of Medical and Health of Zhejiang Province of China [WKJ-ZJ-1403]
  3. Major Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province of China [2014C03029]
  4. 1022 program of Zhejiang Cancer Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To evaluate the expression of programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and their clinical and prognostic significance in primary esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Results: The expression rate of PD-1 and PD-Li in ESCC was 33.5% (117/349) and 41.4% (222/536), respectively. PD-L1 expression differed significantly by tumor location, grade, lymph node metastases, and disease stage (P < 0.05). Moreover, its expression was associated with the disease free survival (DFS). Patients with positive PD-L1 expression had reduced risk for disease relapse compared to those without PD-Li expression (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.00, P = 0.048). Kaplan-Meier curves showed the similar result, P = 0.047. However, there was no significant correlation between PD-1 expression and clinicopathological factors or outcome in ESCC (P > 0.05). Methods: The expression of PD-1 and PD-Li was assessed by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays from 536 primary ESCC who underwent surgery during January 2008 and April 2012 in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Chi-square test and Cox proportional hazards regression were employed to analyze the associations between their expressions and clinicopathological variables and survival. Conclusions: Our results suggested that PD-L1 could be a favorable indicator of prognosis in ESCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据