Abstract
Background
Programmed death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 play critical roles in immune checkpoint regulation. This study investigated the relationship between PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on peripheral blood lymphocytes and Non- Hodgkin Lymphoma progression.
Methods
This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with Non- Hodgkin Lymphoma at Jilin Cancer Hospital between October 2013 and May 2017. PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was analyzed using flow cytometry.
Results
A total of 125 non- Hodgkin Lymphoma patients (65 males and 60 females; median age, 57 years; range, 14–86 years) were included. PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on CD8+ T cells was significantly higher in patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (>245 U/L) than in those with normal LDH (PD-1: 16.46% vs. 12.68%, P = 0.005; PD-L1: 9.96% vs. 7.90%, P = 0.043). PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells was also higher in patients with bone marrow involvement compared with those without (17.62% vs. 14.56%, P = 0.039). Furthermore, PD-L1 expression on both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was significantly lower in patients who achieved complete response (CR) compared with those with non-CR (CD4+: 11.14% vs. 18.61%, P<0.001; CD8+: 7.19% vs. 10.60%, P = 0.032). Notably, a decrease in CD4+ PD-1 levels after treatment showed a strong trend towards improved overall survival compared with cases showing increased levels (median survival not reached in the decreased group vs. 41.77 months in the increased group, P = 0.066).
Conclusion
Peripheral blood lymphocyte PD-1 and PD-L1 expression are associated with LDH levels, bone marrow involvement, and treatment response. A reduction in CD4+ PD-1 levels after treatment is associated with a trend towards improved overall survival.
Keywords: immune checkpoint, non - Hodgkin lymphoma lymphoma, PD-1, PD-L1, survival
Background
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma ranks among the ten most common malignancies in China, with an age-standardized incidence rate of 3.75 cases per 100,000 people (1, 2). It is also one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the country (3). Management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma involves various approaches tailored to the specific type and stage of the disease, including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and stem cell transplantation (4–7). However, due to the limited understanding of non-Hodgkin lymphoma pathogenesis, chemotherapy remains the primary treatment option, apart from the use of rituximab in CD20-positive B-cell lymphoma (6). Many patients either develop resistance to initial chemotherapy or relapse after remission, leaving limited treatment options and resulting in poor prognoses (5–7). Consequently, identifying new therapeutic targets and predictors of treatment efficacy is critical for improving non-Hodgkin lymphoma management and patient outcomes.
The tumor microenvironment and the immune response to cancer cells play significant roles in controlling tumor progression (8). However, cancer cells can exploit various immune checkpoints to evade detection by the immune system (9). As a result, recent treatment paradigms have shifted toward targeting these immune evasion mechanisms (10). Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 are key immune checkpoints targeted by immunotherapy (11). The PD-1 receptor protein inhibits T cell-mediated immune responses (12). Tumor and stromal cells within the microenvironment can express PD-L1 (B7-H1) and PD-L2 (B7-DC), which bind to PD-1 and suppress lymphocyte proliferation and cytokine production (11, 12). Nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 for relapsed/refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma (rrHL) following brentuximab vedotin and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) failure (13). Pembrolizumab, another anti-PD-1 antibody, received FDA and European Commission approval for rrHL in 2017 (14). Beyond their role in checkpoint inhibition, PD-1 and PD-L1 expression may also influence chemotherapy response in lymphoma. Chemotherapy can alter the tumor microenvironment and induce PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, thereby reducing T cell activity and weakening the antitumor immune response (15, 16).
While these therapies show great promise, overall response rates to immune checkpoint blockade are 60%–80% for rrHL but only 20%–40% for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (17, 18). In comparison, chemotherapy response rates remain around 50% (19, 20). Thus, reliable methods are needed to identify patient subsets most likely to benefit from these therapies. Tumor tissue provides valuable biomarker information, but its use is limited by restricted availability, tumor heterogeneity, dynamic expression patterns, and technical challenges (21, 22). In contrast, liquid biopsies, such as peripheral blood sampling, offer a convenient, non-invasive means of dynamic monitoring with the advantage of reflecting systemic heterogeneity (22). Previous studies suggest that upregulation of PD-1/PD-L1 expression on peripheral blood cells is closely associated with cancer (23). Moreover, CD28 expression by peripheral blood PD-1+ CD8+ T cells has been proposed as a potential biomarker for predicting responses to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade therapy (24). However, the precise roles of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on peripheral blood immune cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma remain unclear.
This study aims to investigate the impact of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on peripheral blood non-Hodgkin lymphocytes in relation to lymphoma progression. The findings may help in developing strategies to identify patients most likely to benefit from anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapies.
Materials and methods
Study population
This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma at Jilin Cancer Hospital between October 2013 and May 2017 Eligible patients met the following criteria: (1) diagnosis confirmed by the hospital’s pathology department based on the WHO classification of hematopoietic and lymphoid tissue tumors using morphological and immunohistochemical methods; (2) availability of complete clinical data, treatment records, and follow-up information; (3) newly diagnosed cases without prior anti-lymphoma therapy; and (4) pretreatment peripheral blood PD-1 and PD-L1 test results. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete data, a history of other malignancies, congenital immunodeficiency, infectious diseases, or significant diseases of the heart, liver, kidneys, or other vital organs.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jilin Cancer Hospital (Approval No. 202507-004-01). The committee waived the requirement for individual informed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study. This study initially included patients with both Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). Given the fundamental differences in the tumor microenvironment, cell of origin, and standard treatment approaches between HL and NHL, and the small number of HL cases (n=149), the subsequent analyses of biomarker association and prognosis were focused on the NHL cohort (n=125) to ensure biological and clinical homogeneity.
PD-1/PD-L1 status was assessed using fasting venous blood samples collected in EDTA tubes and stored at 4 °C. During the study period, flow cytometry was performed with mouse anti-human monoclonal antibodies, including PD-1 (CD279-PE), PD-L1 (CD274-PE), and CTLA-4 (CD152-PerCP), as well as CD3, CD4, CD25, and CD8. The frequencies of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression were evaluated in all participants using a BD flow cytometer, with a minimum diagnostic threshold of 250,000 events per sample.
PD-1/PD-L1 flow cytometry analysis
PD-1/PD-L1 status was assessed using fasting venous blood samples collected in EDTA tubes and stored at 4°C. During the study period, flow cytometry was performed with mouse anti-human monoclonal antibodies, including PD-1 (CD279-PE), PD-L1 (CD274-PE), and CTLA-4 (CD152-PerCP), as well as CD3, CD4, CD25, and CD8. Lymphocytes were first gated based on forward and side scatter characteristics. Subsequently, CD3+ T cells were selected. From the CD3+ population, CD4+ and CD8+ subsets were identified. PD-1 (CD279) and PD-L1 (CD274) expression were then analyzed within these CD4+ and CD8+ gates. Isotype controls were used to define positive populations. The frequencies of PD-1 and PD-L1 expression were evaluated in all participants using a BD flow cytometer, with a minimum diagnostic threshold of 250,000 events per sample.
Data collection
Demographic data (sex and age), clinical characteristics (pathological type, extranodal involvement, bone marrow involvement, stage, β2-microglobulin [β2MG], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [ECOG PS], B symptoms, and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]), PD-1/PD-L1 expression status, treatment response, and complications (leukopenia, neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infection) were extracted from medical records.
Treatment regimens were standardized based on lymphoma subtype. Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma received ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine). Patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma received CHOP-based regimens. Response (CR/PR) was assessed after 4–6 cycles of these first-line therapies.
Staging was performed in accordance with the 2014 Lugano staging system (25) (Appendix 1). Treatment response was evaluated based on the 2014 Lugano criteria for lymphoma treatment response assessment, which include complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) (25). Hematologic adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03.
Follow-up data were obtained from the medical records. For patients who remained alive, follow-up was censored on October 31, 2024. The cause and time of death were recorded. Overall survival was calculated from the date of cancer diagnosis to death from any cause.
Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were measured as part of routine clinical biochemistry using an automated analyzer (specify model, e.g., Beckman Coulter AU5800) at the hospital’s central laboratory. The upper limit of normal (ULN) was defined as 245 U/L according to the laboratory’s reference range. Detailed flow cytometry protocol: Whole blood was stained within 4 hours of collection. The antibody panel included: anti-CD3-FITC (clone SK7, BioLegend), anti-CD4-PerCP (clone SK3, BD Biosciences), anti-CD8-APC (clone SK1, BioLegend), anti-PD-1-PE (clone EH12.2H7, BioLegend), and anti-PD-L1-PE/Cy7 (clone 29E.2A3, BioLegend). Appropriate isotype controls were used. Red blood cells were lysed using BD FACS Lysing Solution. A minimum of 100,000 lymphocyte-gated events were acquired on a BD FACS Canto II flow cytometer and analyzed using FlowJo software.
Statistical analysis
All data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical variables were expressed as n (%), and non-normally distributed continuous variables were presented as medians with interquartile ranges. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between groups, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied for pre- and post-treatment comparisons. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed with the log-rank test, while survival rates were calculated with the life table method. Multivariable Cox stepwise regression was performed to adjust for confounding variables and to identify factors independently associated with overall survival as the dependent variable. Variables with P < 0.10 in univariable analysis were entered into a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using a backward stepwise elimination procedure (removal criterion P > 0.05). Two-sided P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. P-values are reported to two or three decimal places.
Results
Characteristics of the patients
A total of 125 patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this study, comprising 65 males and 60 females, with a median age of 57 years (range, 14–86 years). All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–2. The clinical characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Characteristics of 125 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
| Characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 65 | 52.0 |
| Female | 60 | 48.0 |
| Age | ||
| ≤60 | 78 | 62.4 |
| >60 | 47 | 37.6 |
| Pathological type | ||
| B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma | 92 | 73.6 |
| T cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma | 33 | 26.4 |
| Extranodal involvement | ||
| No | 28 | 22.4 |
| Yes | 97 | 77.6 |
| Bone marrow involvement | ||
| No | 110 | 88.0 |
| Yes | 15 | 12.0 |
| Stage | ||
| I-II | 54 | 43.2 |
| III-IV | 71 | 56.8 |
| β2-microglobulin | ||
| Normal | 60 | 48.0 |
| Elevated | 65 | 52.0 |
| Lactic dehydrogenase | ||
| Normal | 75 | 60.0 |
| Elevated | 50 | 40.0 |
| B symptoms | ||
| A | 91 | 72.8 |
| B | 34 | 27.2 |
The associations between baseline clinical characteristics and the expression of peripheral blood lymphocyte PD-1 and PD-L1 in non-Hodgkin lymphoma are illustrated in Table 2. No significant associations were observed between PD-1 and PD-L1 expression and clinical parameters such as sex, age, disease status, pathological type, β2-microglobulin (β2MG) levels, ECOG PS, B symptoms, extranodal involvement, and bone marrow involvement. However, PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells was significantly higher in patients with elevated LDH levels (>245 U/L) than in those with normal LDH levels (PD-1: 16.46 [12.40-23.96]% vs. 12.68 [10.54-16.84]%, P = 0.005), as shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Association between PD-1/PD-L1 expression and clinical characteristics (n=125).
| Characteristics | n | PD1-CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PD1-CD8(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1-CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1-CD8(%), median (IQR) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||||||
| Male | 65 | 22.30 (17.38-26.03) | 0.169 | 14.32 (11.22-17.25) | 0.974 | 12.67 (10.61-22.53) | 0.857 | 8.33 (5.34-13.28) | 0.931 |
| Female | 60 | 22.85 (18.81-28.02) | 14.87 (10.49-22.39) | 14.65 (10.15-21.94) | 9.66 (5.69-13.15) | ||||
| Age | |||||||||
| ≤60 | 78 | 22.69 (19.43-27.23) | 0.399 | 14.95 (10.58-21.32) | 0.509 | 13.66 (10.68-21.49) | 0.872 | 8.36 (5.60-13.03) | 0.689 |
| >60 | 47 | 22.00 (18.56-26.95) | 12.84 (10.54-21.94) | 14.23 (9.98-22.71) | 9.64 (4.69-13.25) | ||||
| Pathological type | |||||||||
| B cell NHL | 92 | 22.46 (18.66-26.95) | 0.555 | 13.82 (10.56-21.41) | 0.345 | 14.00 (10.48-22.25) | 0.940 | 9.32 (4.99-12.54) | 0.291 |
| T cell NHL | 33 | 22.44 (17.02-27.07) | 15.65 (11.62-21.45) | 13.54 (10.34-21.76) | 9.67 (6.67-15.36) | ||||
| β2MG | |||||||||
| Normal | 60 | 21.85 (18.56-25.89) | 0.163 | 14.87 (10.58-23.56) | 0.580 | 13.66 (10.47-22.36) | 0.935 | 9.09 (5.90-12.13) | 0.548 |
| Elevated | 65 | 23.25 (19.18-27.05) | 13.87 (10.54-19.48) | 14.23 (10.35-21.66) | 9.50 (5.07-13.61) | ||||
| LDH | |||||||||
| Normal | 75 | 22.15 (18.56-26.95) | 0.338 | 12.68 (10.54-16.84) | 0.005* | 13.44 (9.68-22.15) | 0.412 | 8.33 (4.46-12.28) | 0.070 |
| Elevated | 50 | 22.74 (19.09-27.80) | 16.46 (12.40-23.96) | 15.07 (10.97-22.20) | 10.30 (6.32-15.05) | ||||
| Stage | |||||||||
| 0-II | 54 | 21.99 (18.19-26.95) | 0.180 | 13.28 (10.54-18.12) | 0.103 | 13.11 (10.01-22.20) | 0.699 | 10.16 (4.59-12.72) | 0.690 |
| III-IV | 71 | 22.78 (19.68-21.70) | 15.51 (10.98-22.54) | 14.22 (10.75-21.96) | 8.66 (5.87-13.58) | ||||
| B symptoms | |||||||||
| A | 91 | 22.44 (19.67-26.95) | 0.504 | 14.32 (10.58-21.61) | 0.822 | 14.23 (10.54-21.54) | 0.393 | 9.68 (5.71-13.63) | 0.127 |
| B | 34 | 22.50 (15.69-27.33) | 15.26 (10.50.-20.60) | 12.91 (8.94-22.20) | 6.86 (5.17-11.61) | ||||
| Extranodal involvement | |||||||||
| No | 28 | 23.30 (19.48-27.10) | 0.292 | 140.4 (10.55-18.75) | 0.700 | 12.31 (9.95-19.86) | 0.492 | 7.02 (4.83-10.64) | 0.175 |
| Yes | 97 | 22.36 (18.60-26.95) | 14.88 (10.58-21.70) | 14.28 (10.50-22.25) | 9.67 (5.93-13.66) | ||||
| Bone marrow involvement | |||||||||
| No | 110 | 22.34 (18.56-26.95) | 0.185 | 13.94 (10.55-20.21) | 0.053 | 14.00 (9.93-21.62) | 0.179 | 9.44 (5.31-12.86) | 0.521 |
| Yes | 15 | 22.78 (20.84-29.67) | 16.84 (12.84-29.67) | 13.64 (10.97 + 33.10) | 9.67 (6.18-15.25) | ||||
Values are median (IQR) NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; β2MG, β2-microglobulin; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase.
Patients with CR demonstrated lower PD-L1 expression
All patients underwent chemotherapy, and treatment responses were assessed in 103 individuals (82.4%). Among these evaluable patients, 34(33.0%) achieved CR, 62(60.2%) achieved PR, 6 (5.8%) experienced SD, and 1 patient exhibited PD. Notably, PD-L1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was significantly lower in patients with CR compared to those without CR (CD4+: 11.14% [5.98-19.09] vs. 18.61% [1.63-23.55], P < 0.001; CD8+: 7.19% [4.21-10.65] vs. 10.60% [6.15-15.17], P = 0.032. PD-1 expression did not show any significant association with treatment response (Table 3).
Table 3.
PD-1/PD-L1 expression and treatment response (n=103).
| Response | n | PD1-CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PD1-CD8(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1-CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1-CD8(%), median (IQR) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR | 34 | 22.57 (18.56-27.36) | 0.978 | 14.57 (11.10-18.45) | 0.883 | 11.14 (5.98-19.09) | 0.001* | 7.19 (4.21-10.65) | 0.032* |
| Non-CR | 69 | 22.31 (18.66-26.97) | 13.87 (10.56-23.79) | 18.61 (11.63-23.55) | 10.60 (6.15-15.17) |
IQR, interquartile range; CR, complete response.
Adverse reactions
Adverse reactions were documented in all patients, including hematological toxicity and infection. PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells was found to be elevated in patients experiencing more severe leukopenia (15.72 [11.54-23.72]% vs. 12.69 [10.52-15.81]%, P = 0.008). Additionally, PD-1 expression on CD4+ T cells was significantly higher in patients with more severe anemia and thrombocytopenia (anemia: 26.25 [22.51-44.17]% vs. 22.31 [18.56-26.95]%, P = 0.018; thrombocytopenia:25.40 [20.50-29.56]% vs. 22.15 [18.56-26.63]%, P = 0.042) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Association between PD-1/PD-L1 expression and adverse events (n=125).
| Adverse reaction grade | n | PD1-CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PD1-CD8(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1CD4(%), median (IQR) | P | PDL1CD8(%), median (IQR) | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leucopenia | |||||||||
| 0-2 | 47 | 21.86 (16.99-25.69) | 0.140 | 12.69 (10.52-15.81) | 0.008* | 12.67 (10.75-21.54) | 0.733 | 9.58 (4.85-13.68) | 0.927 |
| 3-4 | 78 | 22.69 (19.09-27.75) | 15.72 (11.54-23.72) | 14.25 (10.21-23.03) | 8.85 (5.83-12.86) | ||||
| Neutropenia | |||||||||
| 0-2 | 39 | 21.86 (16.99-26.37) | 0.364 | 13.77 (10.52-16.84) | 0.204 | 12.59 (10.44-21.96) | 0.685 | 9.52 (5.32-14.98) | 0.649 |
| 3-4 | 86 | 22.60 (19.09-27.10) | 15.50 (11.15-22.79) | 14.26 (10.41-22.45) | 9.44 (5.60-12.62) | ||||
| Anemia | |||||||||
| 0-2 | 114 | 22.31 (18.56-26.95) | 0.018* | 14.11 (10.57-20.21) | 0.086 | 13.54 (10.39-22.01) | 0.405 | 8.97 (5.34-12.97) | 0.234 |
| 3-4 | 11 | 26.25 (22.51-44.17) | 16.57 (11.67-36.25) | 20.28 (11.67-22.36) | 10.44 (6.36-29.67) | ||||
| Thrombocytopenia | |||||||||
| 0-2 | 101 | 22.15 (18.56-26.63) | 0.042* | 14.56 (10.58-20.24) | 0.804 | 13.54 (10.45-21.40) | 0.211 | 9.50 (5.70-12.87) | 0.836 |
| 3-4 | 24 | 25.40 (20.50-29.56) | 14.18 (10.71-23.45) | 18.00 (7.34-29.22) | 8.27 (4.98-14.85) | ||||
| Infection | |||||||||
| No | 89 | 22.15 (18.66-26.75) | 0.276 | 13.87 (10.55-20.46) | 0.202 | 12.67 (10.28-21.46) | 0.175 | 8.06 (4.87-12.27) | 0.072 |
| Yes | 36 | 23.02 (16.65-29.50) | 15.71 (11.77-23.13) | 15.82 (10.56-23.56) | 10.51 (6.00-15.52) | ||||
IQR, interquartile range.
Associations of PD-1 and PD-L1 with prognosis
Within a median follow-up period of 94.0 months (range: 0.0–132.0), fore patients (3.2%) were lost to follow-up, and 62 patients (49.6%) died from the disease. Table 5 presents the results of the univariable and multivariable analyses of prognostic factors for OS. The Cox multivariable analysis revealed that age >60 years (HR: 2.89 95% CI: 1.52-5.52; P=0.001), T cell NHL(HR: 2.90, 95% CI: 1.48-5.69 P = 0.002), stage III–IV disease (HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.02-3.71 P=0.043), severe anemia (HR: 2.96 95% CI: 1.28-6.85; P=0.011), and infection (HR: 2.57, 95% CI: 1.37-4.81; P=0.003) were independent predictors of OS. Notably, PD-1 and PD-L1 levels showed no significant association with prognosis.
Table 5.
Univariable and multivariable analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival (n=125).
| Characteristics | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | P | HR (95%CI) | P | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 1 | |||
| Female | 0.90 (0.54-1.51) | 0.690 | ||
| Age | ||||
| ≤60 | 1 | 1 | ||
| >60 | 2.21 (1.32-3.71) | 0.003* | 2.89 (1.52-5.52) | 0.001* |
| Pathological type | ||||
| B cell NHL | 1 | 1 | ||
| T cell NHL | 2.56 (1.50-4.40) | 0.001* | 2.90 (1.48-5.69) | 0.002* |
| Extranodal involvement | ||||
| No | 1 | |||
| Yes | 1.29(0.67-2.49) | 0.445 | ||
| Bone marrow involvement | ||||
| No | 1 | |||
| Yes | 2.03 (1.02-4.01) | 0.043* | ||
| Stage | ||||
| 0-II | 1 | 1 | ||
| III-IV | 2.56 (1.45-4.51) | 0.001* | 1.95 (1.02-3.71) | 0.043* |
| β2-microglobulin | ||||
| Normal | 1 | |||
| Elevated | 2.38 (1.38-4.09) | 0.002* | ||
| Lactic dehydrogenase | ||||
| Normal | 1 | |||
| Elevated | 1.70 (1.01-2.85) | 0.044* | ||
| B symptoms | ||||
| A | 1 | |||
| B | 1.06 (0.60-1.87) | 0.841 | ||
| Response | ||||
| CR | 1 | |||
| Non-CR | 2.37 (1.14-4.95) | 0.021* | ||
| Leucopenia | ||||
| Grade 0-2 | 1 | |||
| Grade 3-4 | 1.24 (0.72-2.14) | 0.432 | ||
| Neutropenia | ||||
| Grade 0-2 | 1 | |||
| Grade 3-4 | 1.01 (0.58-1.77) | 0.964 | ||
| Anemia | ||||
| Grade 0-2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Grade 3-4 | 3.09 (1.45-6.57) | 0.003* | 2.96 (1.28-6.85) | 0.011* |
| Thrombocytopenia | ||||
| Grade 0-2 | 1 | |||
| Grade 3-4 | 1.18 (0.63-2.23) | 0.609 | ||
| Infection | ||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 2.55 (1.51-4.31) | <0.001* | 2.57 (1.37-4.81) | 0.003* |
| PD1-CD4 (%) | 1.00 (0.97-1.03) | 0.926 | ||
| PD1-CD8 (%) | 1.01 (0.99-1.03) | 0.568 | ||
| PDL1CD4 (%) | 1.02 (0.99-1.04) | 0.220 | ||
| PDL1CD84 (%) | 1.01 (0.98-1.04) | 0.470 | ||
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; CR, complete response.
a Variables with P < 0.10 in univariable analysis were included in the multivariable Cox model (backward stepwise elimination).
Conversely, changes in PD-1 expression before and after treatment appeared to correlate with outcomes, as patients with decreased PD-1 levels post-treatment had longer OS. Blood samples were collected from 63 patients before and after treatment (57 received anthracycline-based chemotherapy, five received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, and one received methotrexate-based chemotherapy) (Table 6). Two patients (3.2%) were lost to follow-up. Among the remaining patients, 39 (61.9%) demonstrated decreased CD4+ PD-1 levels post-treatment, while 24 patients (38.1%) exhibited an increase. Patients with reduced CD4+ PD-1 levels showed superior survival compared with those with increased levels (rP=0.066) (Figure 1).
Table 6.
Chemotherapy regimens for patients with paired blood samples (n=63).
| Characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 33 | 52.4 |
| Female | 30 | 47.6 |
| Age | ||
| ≤60 | 45 | 71.4 |
| >60 | 18 | 28.6 |
| Pathological type | ||
| B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma | 48 | 76.2 |
| T cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma | 15 | 23.8 |
| Extranodal involvement | ||
| No | 19 | 30.2 |
| Yes | 44 | 69.8 |
| Bone marrow involvement | ||
| No | 58 | 92.1 |
| Yes | 5 | 7.9 |
| Stage | ||
| I-II | 32 | 50.8 |
| III-IV | 31 | 49.2 |
| β2-microglobulin | ||
| Normal | 32 | 50.8 |
| Elevated | 31 | 49.2 |
| Lactic dehydrogenase | ||
| Normal | 38 | 60.3 |
| Elevated | 25 | 39.7 |
| B symptoms | ||
| A | 44 | 69.8 |
| B | 19 | 30.2 |
Figure 1.
Survival analysis in 63 patients with lymphoma. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed according to the change in PD-1+ CD4 +.
Discussion
This study explored the potential association between PD-1 and PD-L1 expression on peripheral blood lymphocytes and the progression of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The findings indicate that peripheral blood lymphocyte PD-1/PD-L1 expression is associated with LDH, bone marrow involvement, and treatment response. A reduction in CD4+ PD-1 levels after treatment appeared to be associated with overall survival (OS) benefits. These observations suggest that monitoring peripheral blood lymphocyte PD-1 and PD-L1 could provide insights into treatment response and complications in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Although the results are promising, further prospective studies are required to validate the clinical utility of PD-1/PD-L1 as biomarkers for monitoring disease progression and prognosis in non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The observed lower peripheral PD-L1 expression on T cells in patients achieving CR likely reflects a reduced state of systemic immune activation and exhaustion following effective tumor debulking. In contrast, patients with PR, SD, or PD have persistent disease, which continuously presents tumor antigens (47). This chronic antigenic stimulation is a primary driver of T-cell exhaustion, characterized by the upregulation of inhibitory receptors like PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1. Persistent PD-L1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the non-CR group may thus serve as a surrogate marker for an ongoing, but ineffective, immune response against residual tumor cells. This exhausted phenotype is associated with impaired T-cell proliferation, cytokine production (e.g., IFN-γ, TNF-α), and cytotoxic function. Therefore, the failure to downregulate this checkpoint axis post-chemotherapy may indicate a tumor microenvironment that remains immunosuppressive and resistant to immune-mediated clearance, explaining the poorer outcomes in this group. Future studies correlating peripheral PD-1/PD-L1 levels with functional assays of T-cell exhaustion and tumor microenvironment analysis are warranted to validate this mechanistic link (48).
A decrease in CD4+ PD-1 after treatment was associated with improved overall survival. The results provide evidence that PD-1 and PD-L1 are involved in non-Hodgkin lymphoma prognosis. A decrease in PD-L1 expression after treatment in lymphoma may be a positive prognostic indicator (26, 27). While high PD-L1 expression is often associated with poor outcomes, its reduction suggests a potential response to treatment and may even improve survival. Similar results were observed in lung cancer (28), B-cell lymphoma (29), and DLBCL (30).
While the downregulation of PD-1/PD-L1 on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes or soluble PD-L1 post-treatment has been documented in some lymphoma studies (cite relevant studies) (49), our study provides novel evidence that this dynamic change is also detectable and clinically relevant in the peripheral blood compartment. This is significant for two reasons. First, it supports the use of non-invasive liquid biopsy for monitoring immune checkpoint status. Second, our cohort consisted of patients treated predominantly with conventional chemotherapy, not PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. This suggests that effective chemotherapy itself can modulate the systemic immune checkpoint landscape, potentially by reducing tumor antigen burden and associated T-cell exhaustion (50). Our finding that this peripheral decrease is associated with better outcomes highlights its potential as a dynamic, systemic biomarker of effective anti-tumor response, irrespective of the specific therapy used.
The present study revealed that PD-1 and PD-L1 were expressed on peripheral blood CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This differed from a study in small cell lung cancer, in which PD-L1 was not detected (31). The present study also showed that patients with higher LDH levels or bone marrow involvement had higher CD8+ T cell PD-1 and PD-L1 expression compared with those with less severe disease. These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting that PD-1 expression levels on T cells may be positively associated with the progression of gastric cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and cervical cancer (23, 32, 33). MacFarlane et al. (34) similarly reported increased PD-1 expression on peripheral blood effector T cells in renal cell carcinoma, which was significantly reduced soon after surgical resection of the primary tumor. This could be explained by PD-1 expression being induced by high antigen concentration and prolonged antigen stimulation. Therefore, PD-1 expression in peripheral blood may serve as an immunological predictor of tumor progression and outcomes in lymphoma patients.
Although PD-L1 expression by tumor cells has been used as a biomarker for selecting patients for PD-L1/PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapies, patients whose tumor cells lack PD-L1 expression can still respond positively to such therapies (35). This suggests that PD-L1 expressed by non-malignant cells may contribute to antitumor immunity. In the present study, all patients were treated with chemotherapy. PD-L1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was lower in those who achieved complete response (CR) compared with those who did not (i.e., PR, SD, or PD), while PD-1 expression showed no significant association with CR. This finding is supported by Wang et al. (36), who found that patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma had significantly elevated serum soluble plasma PD-L1 levels if they had increased LDH or failed to achieve CR following chemotherapy. Peripheral blood PD-L1 expression has also been associated with tumor progression and prognosis in gastric cancer, renal cell carcinoma, DLBCL, and multiple myeloma (37–41). On the other hand, in the present study, PD-1 and PD-L1 were not associated with overall survival. PD-L1 on effector CD8+ T cells is required for their survival and function (42), but higher CD8+ PD-L1+ expression here was linked to poorer treatment responses. This may reflect unique characteristics of PD-L1 expression and its role in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, requiring further investigation. Nevertheless, PD-L1 expression on T cells may serve as a predictive biomarker and highlight the potential usefulness of alternative immunological therapeutic strategies, including PD-1 axis inhibitors, in lymphoma.
PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells was higher in patients with more severe leukopenia, while PD-1 expression on CD4+ T cells was higher in those with more severe anemia or thrombocytopenia. PD-1 expression on T cells has been linked to various hematological disorders, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Although the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood, PD-1 regulates T cell activity, and its dysregulation may contribute to immune-mediated damage to the hematopoietic system (43–45). PD-1 is strongly expressed on T cells in patients with aplastic anemia, implying a role in immune-mediated destruction of red blood cell precursors (45). PD-1 expression is also increased in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in patients with active immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), further supporting the involvement of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in disease pathogenesis (43, 44, 46).
This study has several limitations. First, it was conducted at a single institution and included a relatively small sample size, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Second, the retrospective design constrained the analysis to available patient records, potentially introducing selection or information bias. Additionally, the study assessed only peripheral blood PD-1 and PD-L1 expression without considering tumor-related parameters, limiting associations with tumor characteristics. Finally, all patients received chemotherapy, but the regimens varied, and results may not reflect broader treatment contexts. Therefore, further prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings and to explore the role of PD-1 and PD-L1 in lymphoma across different therapeutic approaches.
Conclusion
In summary, peripheral blood lymphocyte PD-1 and PD-L1 levels appear to be associated with clinical factors such as LDH levels, bone marrow involvement, treatment-related adverse events, and treatment efficacy in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Notably, a decrease in CD4+ PD-1 levels following treatment was associated with improved overall survival. Although these findings are promising, further studies are needed to confirm these associations and to explore their potential clinical applications in non-Hodgkin lymphoma management.
Funding Statement
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Jilin Provincial Health Science and Technology Capacity Improvement Project No. 2025WS-KA048.
Footnotes
Edited by: Jianxun J. Song, Texas A&M Health Science Center, United States
Reviewed by: Sunilgowda Sunnagatta Nagaraja, Texas A and M University, United States
Fengyang Lei, Capital Medical University, China
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Committee of Jilin Cancer Hospital (Approval No. 202507-004-01). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because the retrospective design of the study.
Author contributions
LL: Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. LW: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Software, Investigation, Data curation. WW: Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Resources, Investigation, Writing – original draft. YSW: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Software, Resources. YRW: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Software, Writing – original draft. NX: Resources, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Software, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal Analysis. NL: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Software, Investigation. HL: Project administration, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Software, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Investigation.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2026.1683486/full#supplementary-material
References
- 1. Health Commission Of The People’s Republic Of China N . National guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of Malignant lymphoma 2022 in China (English version). Chin J Cancer Res. (2022) 34:425–46. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2022.05.01, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Wang XM, Bassig BA, Wen JJ, Li GD, Liu ZB, Yao WX, et al. Clinical analysis of 1629 newly diagnosed Malignant lymphomas in current residents of Sichuan province, China. Hematol Oncol. (2016) 34:193–9. doi: 10.1002/hon.2202, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Shi Y. Current status and progress of lymphoma management in China. Int J Hematol. (2018) 107:405–12. doi: 10.1007/s12185-018-2404-8, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Ansell SM. Hodgkin lymphoma: 2023 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. (2022) 97:1478–88. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26717, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Burton C, Allen P, Herrera AF. Paradigm shifts in hodgkin lymphoma treatment: from frontline therapies to relapsed disease. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. (2024) 44:e433502. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_433502, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). B-Cell Lymphomas. Version 2.2025. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; (2025). [Google Scholar]
- 7.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines). Hodgkin Lymphoma. Version 2.2025. Fort Washington: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; (2025). [Google Scholar]
- 8. de Visser KE, Joyce JA. The evolving tumor microenvironment: From cancer initiation to metastatic outgrowth. Cancer Cell. (2023) 41:374–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.02.016, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kim SK, Cho SW. The evasion mechanisms of cancer immunity and drug intervention in the tumor microenvironment. Front Pharmacol. (2022) 13:868695. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.868695, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sanmamed MF, Chen L. A paradigm shift in cancer immunotherapy: from enhancement to normalization. Cell. (2018) 175:313–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.035, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Abaza A, Sid Idris F, Anis Shaikh H, Vahora I, Moparthi KP, Al Rushaidi MT, et al. Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy: A promising breakthrough in cancer therapeutics. Cureus. (2023) 15:e44582. doi: 10.7759/cureus.44582, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Han Y, Liu D, Li L. PD-1/PD-L1 pathway: current researches in cancer. Am J Cancer Res. (2020) 10:727–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Ansell SM, Bröckelmann PJ, von Keudell G, Lee HJ, Santoro A, Zinzani PL, et al. Nivolumab for relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma: 5-year survival from the pivotal phase 2 CheckMate 205 study. Blood Adv. (2023) 7:6266–74. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010334, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Chen R, Zinzani PL, Lee HJ, Armand P, Johnson NA, Brice P, et al. Pembrolizumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: 2-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-087. Blood. (2019) 134:1144–53. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000324, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Maleki Vareki S, Garrigós C, Duran I. Biomarkers of response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. (2017) 116:116–24. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.06.001, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Luo M, Fu L. The effect of chemotherapy on programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand axis: some chemotherapeutical drugs may finally work through immune response. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:29794–803. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7631, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Jeong AR, Ball ED, Goodman AM. Predicting responses to checkpoint inhibitors in lymphoma: are we up to the standards of solid tumors? Clin Med Insights Oncol. (2020) 14:1179554920976366. doi: 10.1177/1179554920976366, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Tarekegn K, Colon Ramos A, Singh B, Sequeira Gross HG, Gupta S. Checkpoint inhibitors in relapsed/refractory classical hodgkin lymphoma. World J Oncol. (2021) 12:81–4. doi: 10.14740/wjon1388, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Montanari F, Diefenbach C. Relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma: management strategies. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. (2014) 9:284–93. doi: 10.1007/s11899-014-0220-7, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Randall MP, Spinner MA. Optimizing treatment for relapsed/refractory classic hodgkin lymphoma in the era of immunotherapy. Cancers. (2023) 15:4509. doi: 10.3390/cancers15184509, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Passaro A, Al Bakir M, Hamilton EG, Diehn M, André F, Roy-Chowdhuri S, et al. Cancer biomarkers: Emerging trends and clinical implications for personalized treatment. Cell. (2024) 187:1617–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.02.041, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Armakolas A, Kotsari M, Koskinas J. Liquid biopsies, novel approaches and future directions. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:1579. doi: 10.3390/cancers15051579, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Zhang Y, Zhu W, Zhang X, Qu Q, Zhang L. Expression and clinical significance of programmed death-1 on lymphocytes and programmed death ligand-1 on monocytes in the peripheral blood of patients with cervical cancer. Oncol Lett. (2017) 14:7225–31. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.7105, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Kamphorst AO, Wieland A, Nasti T, Yang S, Zhang R, Barber DL, et al. Rescue of exhausted CD8 T cells by PD-1-targeted therapies is CD28-dependent. Science. (2017) 355:1423–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0683, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. (2014) 32:3059–68. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Gravelle P, Burroni B, Péricart S, Rossi C, Bezombes C, Tosolini M, et al. Mechanisms of PD-1/PD-L1 expression and prognostic relevance in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a summary of immunohistochemical studies. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:44960–75. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16680, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Qiu L, Zheng H, Zhao X. The prognostic and clinicopathological significance of PD-L1 expression in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2019) 19:273. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5466-y, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Fujimoto D, Uehara K, Sato Y, Sakanoue I, Ito M, Teraoka S, et al. Alteration of PD-L1 expression and its prognostic impact after concurrent chemoradiation therapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:11373. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11949-9, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Yang J, Hu G. Significance of PD-L1 in the diagnosis and treatment of B-cell Malignant lymphoma. Oncol Lett. (2019) 17:3382–6. doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.9982, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Kiyasu J, Miyoshi H, Hirata A, Arakawa F, Ichikawa A, Niino D, et al. Expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 is associated with poor overall survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. (2015) 126:2193–201. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-02-629600, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Li H, Liu Y, Liu Y, Liu J, Zhao D, Wang Y, et al. Distribution and clinical significance of CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1 in peripheral blood of patients with small cell lung cancer. Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. (2017) 20:755–60. doi: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2017.11.06, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Saito H, Kuroda H, Matsunaga T, Osaki T, Ikeguchi M. Increased PD-1 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells is involved in immune evasion in gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. (2013) 107:517–22. doi: 10.1002/jso.23281, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Rusak M, Eljaszewicz A, Bołkun Ł, Łuksza E, Łapuć I, Piszcz J, et al. Prognostic significance of PD-1 expression on peripheral blood CD4+ T cells in patients with newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Pol Arch Med Wewn. (2015) 125:553–9. doi: 10.20452/pamw.2967, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. MacFarlane A, Jillab M, Plimack ER, Hudes GR, Uzzo RG, Litwin S, et al. PD-1 expression on peripheral blood cells increases with stage in renal cell carcinoma patients and is rapidly reduced after surgical tumor resection. Cancer Immunol Res. (2014) 2:320–31. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.Cir-13-0133, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Grigg C, Rizvi NA. PD-L1 biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer: truth or fiction? J Immunother Cancer. (2016) 4:48. doi: 10.1186/s40425-016-0153-x, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Wang H, Wang L, Liu WJ, Xia ZJ, Huang HQ, Jiang WQ, et al. High post-treatment serum levels of soluble programmed cell death ligand 1 predict early relapse and poor prognosis in extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:33035–45. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.8847, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Rossille D, Gressier M, Damotte D, Maucort-Boulch D, Pangault C, Semana G, et al. High level of soluble programmed cell death ligand 1 in blood impacts overall survival in aggressive diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: results from a French multicenter clinical trial. Leukemia. (2014) 28:2367–75. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.137, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Fest T, Cerhan J, Gandhi M, Azzaoui I, Crooks P, Maurer M, et al. Validation of elevated blood soluble PD-L1 as an independent prognostic marker in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Blood. (2014) 124:2998. doi: 10.1182/blood.V124.21.2998.2998 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Frigola X, Inman BA, Lohse CM, Krco CJ, Cheville JC, Thompson RH, et al. Identification of a soluble form of B7-H1 that retains immunosuppressive activity and is associated with aggressive renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. (2011) 17:1915–23. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-10-0250, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Wang L, Wang H, Chen H, Wang WD, Chen XQ, Geng QR, et al. Serum levels of soluble programmed death ligand 1 predict treatment response and progression free survival in multiple myeloma. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:41228–36. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5682, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Amatatsu M, Arigami T, Uenosono Y, Yanagita S, Uchikado Y, Kijima Y, et al. Programmed death-ligand 1 is a promising blood marker for predicting tumor progression and prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. Cancer Sci. (2018) 109:814–20. doi: 10.1111/cas.13508, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Gibbons Johnson RM, Dong H. Functional expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (B7-H1) by immune cells and tumor cells. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:961. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00961, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Nie M, Liu Y, Li XX, Min YN, Yang DD, Li Q, et al. PD-1/PD-L pathway potentially involved in ITP immunopathogenesis. Thromb Haemost. (2019) 119:758–65. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1679909, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Malik A, Sayed AA, Han P, Tan MMH, Watt E, Constantinescu-Bercu A, et al. The role of CD8+ T-cell clones in immune thrombocytopenia. Blood. (2023) 141:2417–29. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018380, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Zhao W, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Yang J, Zhang L, He A, et al. High programmed death 1 expression on T cells in aplastic anemia. Immunol Lett. (2017) 183:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2017.01.016, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. El-Gendy FM, Shehata AMF, El-Kawy EAA, El-Hawy MA. Changes and correlations of T-cell coinhibitory molecule programmed death-1 and interferon-γ in pediatric immune thrombocytopenia. Clin Exp Pediatr. (2023) 66:127–33. doi: 10.3345/cep.2022.00920, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Wenjian G, Zhi W, Yongqiang W, Maomao W, Kuina L, Xiaoqi C, et al. Dynamic changes in peripheral blood immunophenotyping and its prognostic value in cervical cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Discov Oncol. (2025) 16:167. doi: 10.1007/s12672-025-01943-3, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Qiuhui J, Feng L, Zhifeng L, Hongpeng D, Chong J, Xingxing Y, et al. Changes of T cell subsets across treatments associated with prognosis in newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma. Sci Rep. (2024) 14:27576. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79173-w, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Xianjun L, Xuehan L, Jiaqi S, Yingjing L, Hanyu Z, Tianjun C, et al. Engineered outer membrane vesicles enhance solid tumour CAR-T cell therapy. Nat Biomed Eng. (2025) 6. doi: 10.1038/s41551-025-01575-6, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Yamaguchi H, Jungmao H, Linlin S, Shaochun W, Chiehung M. Advances and prospects of biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cell Rep Med. (2024) 5:101621. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101621, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.