McClanahan Fabienne, Sharp Thomas G, Gribben John G
Department of Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Department of Haemato-Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
Haematologica. 2016 Oct;101(10):1144-1158. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2016.145904.
Therapeutic strategies targeting the programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 pathway have shown significant responses and good tolerability in solid malignancies. Although preclinical studies suggest that inhibiting programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 interactions might also be highly effective in hematological malignancies, remarkably few clinical trials have been published. Determining patients who will benefit most from programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1-directed immunotherapy and whether programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 are adequate prognostic markers becomes an increasingly important clinical question, especially as aberrant programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 expression are key mediators of impaired anti-tumor immune responses in a range of B-cell lymphomas. Herein, we systematically review the published literature on the expression and prognostic value of programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 in these patients and identify considerable differences in expression patterns, distribution and numbers of programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1cells, both between and within lymphoma subtypes, which is reflected in conflicting findings regarding the prognostic value of programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 cells. This can be partly explained by differences in methodologies (techniques, protocols, cutoff values) and definitions of positivity. Moreover, lymphomagenesis, disease progression, and prognosis appear to be determined not only by the presence, numbers and distribution of specific subtypes of T cells, but also by other cells and additional immune checkpoints. Collectively, our findings indicate that programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 interactions play an essential role in B-cell lymphoma biology and are of clinical importance, but that the overall outcome is determined by additional components. To categorize the exact prognostic value of programmed cell death-ligand 1/programmed cell death-1 expressing cells and cell types, efforts should be made to harmonize their assessment and interpretation, optimally within ongoing clinical immune checkpoint inhibitor trials, and to identify and validate novel high-throughput platforms.
针对程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1通路的治疗策略在实体恶性肿瘤中已显示出显著疗效和良好耐受性。尽管临床前研究表明,抑制程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1的相互作用在血液系统恶性肿瘤中可能也非常有效,但已发表的临床试验却非常少。确定哪些患者将从程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1导向的免疫治疗中获益最多,以及程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1是否为充分的预后标志物,已成为一个日益重要的临床问题,尤其是在一系列B细胞淋巴瘤中,异常的程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1表达是抗肿瘤免疫反应受损的关键介质。在此,我们系统回顾了已发表的关于程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1在这些患者中的表达及预后价值的文献,并确定了淋巴瘤亚型之间和亚型内部在程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1细胞的表达模式、分布和数量上存在相当大的差异,这反映在关于程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1细胞预后价值的相互矛盾的研究结果中。这部分可以通过方法学(技术、方案、临界值)和阳性定义的差异来解释。此外,淋巴瘤的发生、疾病进展和预后似乎不仅取决于特定亚型T细胞的存在、数量和分布,还取决于其他细胞和额外的免疫检查点。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1的相互作用在B细胞淋巴瘤生物学中起着至关重要的作用,具有临床重要性,但总体结果由其他因素决定。为了明确程序性细胞死亡配体1/程序性细胞死亡蛋白1表达细胞及细胞类型的确切预后价值,应努力在正在进行的临床免疫检查点抑制剂试验中,最好是在这些试验中,协调对它们的评估和解释,并识别和验证新的高通量平台。