Abstract
Enfortumab vedotin is a novel antibody–drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, which is highly expressed in urothelial carcinoma. However, the expression status of Nectin-4 in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) remains unclear. The relationship between Nectin-4 and Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in UTUC is also ambiguous. We performed immunohistochemical analysis of 99 UTUC tissue microarray to assess the expression of Nectin-4 and PD-L1 in UTUC. Nectin-4-positivity was detected in 65 (65.7%) samples, and PD-L1 was detected in 24 (24.2%) samples. There was no correlation between the expression of Nectin-4 and PD-L1. Patients with strong Nectin-4-expressing tumors had a significantly higher risk of progression (p = 0.031) and cancer-specific mortality (p = 0.036). Strong Nectin-4 expression was also an independent predictor of disease progression in the high-risk group (pT3 ≤ or presence of lymphovascular invasion or lymph node metastasis) (Hazard ratio, 3.32 [95% confidence interval, 1.20–7.98; p = 0.027]). In conclusion, we demonstrated that Nectin-4 expression rate in UTUC was 65.7% and independent of PD-L1 expression. Strong Nectin-4 expression was associated with worse progression-free survival in high-risk UTUC. These findings suggested that enfortumab vedotin may be effective in a broad range of patients with UTUC, regardless of PD-L1 expression.
Keywords: Nectin-4, Programmed Death Ligand 1, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, enfortumab vedotin
1. Introduction
Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is relatively rare, accounting for 5%–10% of all urothelial carcinomas [1,2]. The natural history of UTUC differs from that of urinary bladder urothelial carcinoma (UBC); patients with UTUC often present with invasion or metastases at diagnosis and have a poorer prognosis than those with UBC [1]. While the morphology of UTUC is similar to that of UBC, phenotypical and genetic differences between the two have been reported [2]. Increasing evidence suggests that UTUC could be considered a distinct disease entity from UBC and highlights the importance of developing optimal management strategies for this disease. Locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, including UTUC, is an incurable disease with poor survival. Currently, the first-line therapy for UTUC includes platinum-based chemotherapy, while anti-Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) or Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor is the second-line therapy for these patients [3]. Treatment options are limited in case of patients who show tumor progression even after platinum-based chemotherapy and/or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy.
Nectins are immunoglobulin-like transmembrane proteins that are found in the adherens junctions of cells and mediate Ca2+-independent cell–cell adhesion via both homophilic and heterophilic trans interactions [3]. Recent phase I and II trials demonstrated the efficacy of enfortumab vedotin (EV), which targets Nectin-4 in urothelial carcinoma patients who exhibit tumor progression after platinum chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors [4,5]. EV is an antibody-drug conjugate, comprised of the human anti-Nectin-4 antibody and monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), an anti-microtubule agent [4]. Nectin-4 is highly expressed in urothelial, breast, lung, and pancreatic carcinomas, and EV binds to cells that express Nectin-4 with high affinity, initiating the internalization and release of MMAE in the target cells [3]. Furthermore, patients who did not respond to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor responded to EV in these trials. Thus, EV could be a promising treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that progresses after treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and/or PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. However, Nectin-4 expression in UTUC has not been studied in detail, and to our knowledge, there are no reports on the association between the expression of Nectin-4 and PD-L1 in UTUC.
In the present study, we investigated the expression of Nectin-4 in UTUC using tissue microarray (TMA) specimens of patients with UTUC. We also studied the association between Nectin-4 protein expression and clinicopathological features or outcomes. Additionally, we also examined PD-L1 expression and its correlation with that of Nectin-4. Thus, our study could help identify patients with UTUC who may benefit from EV treatment.
2. Results
2.1. Patient Characteristics
The clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of the 99 patients included in the study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcome of patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Age (year), median (range) | 71 (48–87) |
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Male | 60 (60.6) |
| Female | 39 (39.4) |
| Laterality, n (%) | |
| Right | 43 (43.4) |
| Left | 56 (56.6) |
| Tumor location, n (%) | |
| Renal pelvis | 45 (45.5) |
| Ureter | 50 (50.5) |
| Both | 4 (4.0) |
| Tumor grade, n (%) | |
| Low grade | 15 (15.2) |
| High grade | 84 (85.9) |
| Pathological T stage, n (%) | |
| pTa | 19 (19.2) |
| pT1 | 18 (18.2) |
| pT2 | 8 (8.1) |
| pT3 | 48 (48.5) |
| pT4 | 6 (6.1) |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | |
| No | 59 (59.6) |
| Yes | 40 (40.4) |
| Lymph node metastasis, n (%) | |
| pN0 | 84 (84.8) |
| pN+ | 12 (12.1) |
| pNx | 3 (3.0) |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy, n (%) | |
| No | 63 (63.6) |
| Yes | 26 (26.3) |
| Progression, n (%) | |
| No | 61 (61.6) |
| Yes | 38 (38.4) |
| Follow-up (month), median (range) | 37 (1–173) |
Concomitant radical metastasectomy was performed for two patients who had peritoneal dissemination and distant lymph node metastases (mesentery lymph nodes). None of the tumors showed squamous or glandular differentiation or other histological types such as small cell carcinoma. Tumor progression was defined as the development of non-lower urinary tract lesions, including recurrence at the nephroureterectomy site and lymph node or visceral metastasis. None of the patients received neoadjuvant therapy before the collection of the tissues included in the TMA; however, 26 patients (26.3%) underwent 2 to 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin).
2.2. Immunohistochemical Analysis of Nectin-4 and PD-L1 Expression in UTUC TMA
We conducted immunohistochemical analysis of Nectin-4 expression in 99 UTUC samples and corresponding non-neoplastic urothelium. Typical patterns of Nectin-4 immunohistochemical expression in UTUC TMA specimens are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Typical patterns of immunohistochemical expression of Nectin-4 in UTUC tissue microarray specimens. (A) Normal urothelium with weak expression. (B) UTUC tissue with strong expression. (C) UTUC tissue with moderate expression. (D) UTUC tissue with weak expression. (E) UTUC tissue with negative expression.
Nectin-4-expression was detected in 65 (65.7%) of 99 UTUC samples (1+, 31.3%; 2+, 24.2%; and 3+, 10.1%), which was significantly higher than that in non-neoplastic urothelium (26.9%; 1+, 20.5%; 2+, 5.1%; and 3+, 1.3%; p < 0.001). We also conducted immunohistochemical analysis of PD-L1 expression in the 99 UTUC samples. Immunohistochemical PD-L1 expression is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Membranous Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) tissue microarray specimens. (A) UTUC tissue with moderate expression. (B) UTUC tissue with negative expression.
PD-L1 expression was positive in 24 (24.2%) of 99 patients with UTUC. Next, we analyzed the associations of Nectin-4 and PD-L1 expression with clinicopathological profiles of 99 patients with UTUC (Table 2).
Table 2.
Association of Nectin-4 expression with clinicopathological characteristics of UTUC.
| Variable | Nectin-4 Expression, n (%) | p-Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1+ | 2+ | 3+ | 0 vs. 1+/2+/3+ | 0 vs. 3+ | |
| Sex | 0.134 | 1.000 | ||||
| Male | 17 (28.3) | 20 (33.3) | 18 (30.0) | 5 (8.3) | ||
| Female | 17 (43.6) | 11 (28.2) | 6 (15.4) | 5 (12.8) | ||
| Tumor location | 1.000 a | 0.457 | ||||
| Renal pelvis | 16 (35.6) | 13 (28.9) | 10 (22.2) | 6 (13.3) | ||
| Ureter | 18 (36.0) | 17 (34.0) | 12 (24.0) | 3 (6.0) | ||
| Both | 0 (0.0) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (50.0) | 1 (25.0) | ||
| Tumor grade | 0.376 | 0.177 | ||||
| Low grade | 7 (46.7) | 6 (40) | 2 (13.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| High grade | 27 (32.1) | 25 (29.8) | 22 (26.2) | 10 (11.9) | ||
| Pathological T stage | 0.829 b | 1.000 | ||||
| pTa | 7 (36.8) | 3 (15.8) | 6 (31.6) | 3 (15.8) | ||
| pT1 | 5 (27.8) | 7 (38.9) | 6 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| pT2 | 4 (50.0) | 2 (25.0) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (12.5) | ||
| pT3 | 15 (31.3) | 17 (35.4) | 11 (22.9) | 5 (10.4) | ||
| pT4 | 3 (50.0) | 2 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (16.7) | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.831 | 1.000 | ||||
| No | 21 (35.6) | 17 (28.8) | 15 (25.4) | 6 (10.2) | ||
| Yes | 13 (32.5) | 14 (35.0) | 9 (22.5) | 4 (10.0) | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.745 c | 0.577 | ||||
| pN0 | 29 (34.5) | 26 (31.0) | 21 (25) | 8 (9.5) | ||
| pN+ | 3 (25.0) | 5 (41.7) | 2 (16.7) | 2 (16.7) | ||
| pNx | 2 (66.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
a Renal pelvis vs. Ureter; b pTa+pT1 vs pT2+pT3+pT4; c pN0 vs. pN+.
There was no association between Nectin-4 expression status and patient sex, location, stage, grade, and presence of lymphovascular invasion or lymph node metastasis (0 vs. 1+/2+/3+, 0 vs. 3+). PD-L1 positivity was significantly higher in females (p = 0.034), whereas there was no association between PD-L1 positivity and other clinicopathological characteristics (Supplementary Table S1). Notably, Nectin-4 expression was also not significantly associated with PD-L1 expression (p =0.806), and 15 (15.2%) of the 99 cases were positive for both Nectin-4 and PD-L1 (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Association between the expression of Nectin-4 and Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1).
2.3. Association of Nectin-4 and PD-L1 Expression with Patient Prognosis
We then performed Kaplan–Meier analysis to assess the prognostic value of Nectin-4 expression in UTUC. We found no significant difference in tumor progression (Figure 4A) or cancer-specific mortality (Figure 4B) in patients with Nectin-4 positive tumors and those with Nectin-4 negative tumors. However, patients with strong Nectin-4 expression in tumors had a significantly higher risk of tumor progression (Log-rank test, p = 0.031; Figure 4C) or cancer-specific mortality (Log-rank test, p = 0.036; Figure 4D) than patients who did not show strong Nectin-4 expression in tumors (0/1+/2+ vs. 3+). A comparison between patients with strong Nectin-4 expressing tumors and those with Nectin-4 negative tumors for tumor progression or cancer-specific mortality (0 vs. 3+) is shown in Supplementary Figure S1A,B.
Figure 4.
Progression-free survival (A) and cancer-specific survival (B) in 99 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) based on Nectin-4 expression (0 vs. 1+/2+/3+). Progression-free survival (C) and cancer-specific survival (D) in 99 patients with UTUC based on Nectin-4 expression (0/1+/2+ vs. 3+).
To determine whether strong Nectin-4 expression was an independent prognostic factor in patients with UTUC, we performed a multivariate analysis with the Cox model. In the entire cohort, strong Nectin-4 expression was not an independent predictor of cancer-specific mortality, but it tended to be associated with a higher risk of tumor progression (Table 3).
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival in patients with UTUC.
| Progression-Free Survival | Cancer-Specific Survival | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||||||
| HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | |
| All cases (n = 99) | ||||||||||||
| Sex (male/female) | 1.33 | 0.69–2.69 | 0.396 | 1.33 | 0.64–2.97 | 0.457 | ||||||
| Age (70</≤70) | 1.38 | 0.73–2.70 | 0.329 | 1.65 | 0.79–3.57 | 0.182 | ||||||
| Tumor location (renal pelvis/ureter) | 0.78 | 0.40–1.54 | 0.500 | 0.84 | 0.39–1.72 | 0.608 | ||||||
| Tumor grade (high/low) | 4.44 | 1.35–27.38 | 0.010 | 4.38 | 1.28–27.58 | 0.015 | 7.77 | 1.66–138.52 | 0.005 | 5.76 | 1.21–103.12 | 0.024 |
| pT stage (MI/NMI) | 17.31 | 5.26–106.71 | <0.001 | 11.35 | 3.23–72.07 | <0.001 | 1.09 × 1010 | 13.52–Inf | <0.001 | 7.37 × 109 | 7.70–Inf | <0.001 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (yes/no) | 5.84 | 2.96–12.34 | <0.001 | 2.46 | 1.15–5.52 | 0.020 | 5.62 | 2.58–13.49 | <0.001 | 2.20 | 0.93–5.23 | 0.073 |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes/no) | 4.40 | 1.95–9.00 | <0.001 | 2.31 | 0.95–5.28 | 0.065 | 2.74 | 1.08–6.09 | 0.035 | 0.95 | 0.35–2.55 | 0.914 |
| Nectin-4 strong expression | 2.51 | 0.94–5.61 | 0.064 | 2.73 | 0.97–6.65 | 0.056 | 2.69 | 0.90–6.50 | 0.072 | 2.10 | 0.64–5.81 | 0.179 |
| Overall Survival | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
| HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | |
| All cases (n = 99) | ||||||
| Sex (male/female) | 1.21 | 0.59–2.62 | 0.608 | |||
| Age (70</≤70) | 1.74 | 0.84–3.75 | 0.134 | |||
| Tumor location (renal pelvis/ureter) | 0.89 | 0.43–1.84 | 0.757 | |||
| Tumor grade (high/low) | 8.05 | 1.72–143.58 | 0.004 | 5.99 | 1.26–107.27 | 0.019 |
| pT stage (MI/NMI) | 1.09 × 1010 | 14.00–Inf | <0.001 | 7.70 × 1010 | 8.53–Inf | <0.001 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (yes/no) | 5.02 | 2.38–11.51 | <0.001 | 1.97 | 0.87–4.70 | 0.105 |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes/no) | 2.63 | 1.04–5.81 | 0.041 | 0.95 | 0.35–2.55 | 0.914 |
| Nectin-4 strong expression | 2.60 | 0.88–6.25 | 0.081 | 2.09 | 0.71–6.14 | 0.181 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; MI, muscle-invasive; NMI, non–muscle-invasive; Inf, Infinity.
We defined high-risk group as patients with pathological stage higher than pT3 or presence of lymphovascular invasion or positive lymph nodes. In this group (n = 50), strong Nectin-4 expression was found to be an independent predictor of tumor progression (Table 4).
Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival in patients with high-risk UTUC.
| Progression-Free Survival | Cancer-Specific Survival | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||||||
| HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | |
| High-risk group * (n = 50) | ||||||||||||
| Sex (male/female) | 1.35 | 0.68–2.81 | 0.394 | 1.23 | 0.58–2.75 | 0.601 | ||||||
| Age (70</≤70) | 1.11 | 0.57–2.23 | 0.771 | 1.57 | 0.75–3.48 | 0.238 | ||||||
| Tumor location (renal pelvis/ureter) | 0.95 | 0.47–1.90 | 0.894 | 0.97 | 0.45–2.04 | 0.932 | ||||||
| Tumor grade (high/low) | 6.96 | 1.49–123.94 | 0.008 | 6.30 | 1.34–112.50 | 0.014 | 6.41 | 1.36–114.68 | 0.014 | 5.73 | 1.20–102.73 | 0.025 |
| Nectin-4 strong expression | 3.79 | 1.37–9.11 | 0.013 | 3.32 | 1.20–7.98 | 0.027 | 2.78 | 0.92–6.87 | 0.067 | 2.31 | 0.76–5.77 | 0.128 |
| Overall survival | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
| HR | 95%CI | p-Value | HR | 95%CI | p-Value | |
| High-risk group * (n = 50) | ||||||
| Sex (male/female) | 1.12 | 0.54–2.44 | 0.768 | |||
| Age (70</≤70) | 1.69 | 0.80–3.67 | 0.176 | |||
| Tumor location (renal pelvis/ureter) | 1.04 | 0.50–2.17 | 0.909 | |||
| Tumor grade (high/low) | 6.68 | 1.42–119.40 | 0.011 | 6.01 | 1.26–107.63 | 0.020 |
| Nectin-4 strong expression | 2.73 | 0.91–6.71 | 0.072 | 2.26 | 0.75–5.61 | 0.136 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; * high-risk group is defined as patients with pathological stage higher than pT3 or presence of lymphovascular invasion or positive lymph nodes.
In contrast, the expression status of PD-L1 did not show a significant association with tumor progression (p = 0.254) or cancer-specific mortality (p = 0.381) (Supplementary Figure S2).
3. Discussion
Given that the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was limited in the second-line setting (the objective response rates were only 15.0–21.1% [6,7,8,9]), a new therapeutic option is eagerly expected for UTUC. In December 2019, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved EV for treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, who previously received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and/or platinum-containing chemotherapy. As EV is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, the expression of Nectin-4 in cancer cells is necessary for its cytotoxic effect. In this study, we immunohistochemically analyzed the expression of Nectin-4 in UTUC and found it to be expressed in about 65.7% of the total samples.
So far, Nectin-4 has been considered to be overexpressed in several types of cancer [3]. In urothelial carcinoma, Nectin-4 expression were detected in 434 (82.8%) of 524 bladder cancers (1+, 118 [22.5%]; 2+, 154 [29.4%]; and 3+,162 [30.9%]) [3], and another study reported that Nectin-4 expression level (median H-score) was 290(range:14–300) in 125 UCs including 44 UTUCs (35%) [4]. However, these Nectin-4 expression data of urothelial carcinoma were investigated predominantly in bladder cancer, and the expression status in UTUC remains unclear. Our findings indicated that UTUC might have a slightly lower rate of Nectin-4 positivity than that of UBC [3,4].
Overexpression of Nectin-4 is reportedly implicated in disease progression and poor prognosis in several types of cancer [10,11,12,13]. However, the prognostic significance of Nectin-4 expression has not been investigated in urothelial carcinoma, including UTUC, to date.
For the understanding of the function of Nectin-4 in cancer, Zhang et al. reported that Nectin-4 regulates Rac-1 activity by activating the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) signaling pathway to mediate cell proliferation and migration in gallbladder carcinoma [13]. In the present study, strong Nectin-4 expression was shown to be associated with worse progression-free survival in high-risk UTUC group. Although the benefit of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with high-risk UTUC is still controversial [1,14,15], EV may be useful as an adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk UTUC expressing high levels of Nectin-4.
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and EV are FDA-approved treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-containing chemotherapy. It would be clinically important to examine the relationship between the target proteins of each drug. Two phase III trials (IMvigor130 for atezolizumab and KEYNOTE-361 for pembrolizumab) comparing PD-L1 inhibitor with platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting suggested that PD-L1 inhibitor was inferior to platinum-based chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression was low [16,17]. Therefore, effective treatment options for PD-L1-negative patients may be limited. FDA has limited the use of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab only for patients with PD-L1-expressing locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who are not eligible for cisplatin-containing therapy [17]. As 76% (75 of 99) cases of UTUC in the present study were negative for PD-L1 expression, only 24% of patients with UTUC would be eligible for the pembrolizumab or atezolizumab treatment. However, we also demonstrated Nectin-4 expression was independent of PD-L1 expression. Therefore, EV may be effective in patients with PD-L1-negative UTUC. Indeed, the EV-201 study (phase II trial) also showed a response of EV to urothelial carcinomas, irrespective of the previous response to anti–PD-1/L1 therapy [4]. These data demonstrate the ability of EV to elicit responses across a broad range of patients with UTUC, irrespective of the PD-L1 expression level.
The present study has several limitations. First, the expression status of Nectin-4 in primary and metastatic foci may be different. Besides, UTUC specimens in the present study, which were obtained by radical nephroureterectomy, included low-risk UTUC as well. The metastatic UTUC possessing a more aggressive phenotype may exhibit higher Nectin-4 expression than that in local UTUC. Therefore, the actual response rate of EV in metastatic UTUC needs to be confirmed in future clinical studies. The association of the therapeutic effect of EV with Nectin-4 expression in UTUC also needs to be studied. Second, the differences in immunohistochemical staining methods (e.g., primary antibodies) could affect the result of Nectin-4 expression analysis. Other factors, such as the aging of TMA, could also affect the rate of Netin4 positivity. All TMA specimens in the current study were from Japanese patients; this racial difference also might affect the expression. Third, immunohistochemical analysis is a semi-quantitative evaluation method, and may not have represented the actual expression of these markers.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that Nectin-4 expression rate in UTUC was 65.7% and independent of PD-L1 expression. Strong expression of Nectin-4 was associated with worse progression-free survival in high-risk UTUC. These findings suggested that EV, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting Nectin-4, would be effective in a broad range of patients with UTUC irrespective of the PD-L1 expression level.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Patients and Tissue Samples
The UTUC TMA was constructed with spotted triplicate urothelial tumor samples (from dominant tumors/invasive components if present) and paired normal-appearing urothelial tissues (from the renal pelvis and ureter) obtained from 99 patients with non-metastatic UTUC, who underwent radical nephroureterectomy performed at Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka between 1997 and 2011, as described previously [18,19,20,21,22]. Appropriate approval was obtained from the local institutional review board (Osaka General Medical Center Institutional Review Board, Protocol Number: 25-2014, 19 June 2013) before construction and use of the TMA, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
4.2. Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical staining for Nectin-4 and PD-L1 was performed on the tissue sections (5-μm-thick) from the UTUC TMA using the EnVision system (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The tissue sections were deparaffinized using xylene and a graded series of ethanol. For Nectin-4 antigen retrieval, the sections were treated with Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) buffer (pH 9.0) and steamed by placing them above boiling water for 20 min; PD-L1 antigen was retrieved by treatment with Tris-EDTA buffer (pH 9.0) at 120 °C for 10 min in a pressure cooker (Pascal; DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark). Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked with 0.3% hydrogen peroxide for 5 min. Primary antibodies against Nectin-4 (1:3000; EPR15613-68; Abcam, Cambridge, UK) and PD-L1 (1:100; E1L3N; Cell Signalling, Danvers, MA, USA) were added and incubated overnight at 4 °C. Then, we used EnVision + System-HRP labeled polymer anti-rabbit (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sections were counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol, and cleared in xylene, and a coverslip was placed on them.
4.3. Scoring System
The intensity and extent of Nectin-4 expression were determined microscopically using the histochemical scoring system (H-score), which was defined as the product of the staining intensity (score, 0–3) and percentage of stained cells (0–100) at a given intensity. Specimens were then classified as negative (0; H-score, 0–14), weak (1+; H-score, 15–99), moderate (2+; H-score, 100–199), and strong (3+; H-score, 200–300).
The extent of membranous PD-L1 expression was also determined microscopically in each spot (0–100%). The average PD-L1 expression was calculated in each case and a 1% positivity cut-off was used.
4.4. Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using JMP® Pro 14.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and data were visualized using GraphPad Prism version 7.05 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the association between categorized variables. The survival rates were determined using the Kaplan–Meier method, and the log-rank test was used for comparison. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the statistical significance of prognostic indicators in univariate and multivariate settings. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and <0.1 were considered to be statistically trending.
Acknowledgments
We thank Satoshi Nojima for supporting the assessments of TMA and Atsuko Yasumoto for technical assistance.
Abbreviations
| UTUC | Upper tract urothelial carcinoma |
| UBC | Urinary bladder urothelial carcinoma |
| PD-L1 | Programmed Death Ligand 1 |
| PD-1 | Programmed Death 1 |
| EV | Enfortumab vedotin |
| MMAE | Monomethyl auristatin E |
| TMA | Tissue microarray |
| EDTA | Tris-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid |
| H-score | Histochemical scoring system |
| PI3K | Phosphoinositide 3-kinase |
| AKT | Protein kinase B |
| FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
| HR | Hazard ratio |
| CI | Confidence interval |
| MI | Muscle-invasive |
| NMI | Non-muscle-invasive |
| Inf | Infinity |
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/15/5390/s1, Figure S1: Progression-free survival (A) and cancer-specific survival (B) in 99 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) based on Nectin-4 expression (0 vs. 3+), Figure S2: Progression-free survival (A) and cancer-specific survival (B) in 99 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) based on Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, Table S1: Association of PD-L1 expression with clinicopathological characteristics of UTUC.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, E.T. and K.F.; methodology, E.T. and K.F.; software, E.T.; validation, E.T.; formal analysis, E.T.; investigation, E.T., M.D.C.R.P., D.T., and G.J.N.; resources, K.F., T.T., S.Y., and H.F.; data curation, E.T.; writing—original draft preparation, E.T. and E.B.; writing—review and editing, K.F., T.K., K.H., A.K., T.U., M.U., K.Y., and H.U.; visualization, E.T.; supervision, N.N.; project administration, K.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- 1.Rouprêt M., Babjuk M., Compérat E., Zigeuner R., Sylvester R.J., Burger M., Cowan N.C., Gontero P., Van Rhijn B.W.G., Mostafid A.H., et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2017 Update. Eur. Urol. 2018;73:111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Leow J.J., Chong K.T., Chang S.L., Bellmunt J. Upper tract urothelial carcinoma: A different disease entity in terms of management. ESMO Open. 2016;1:1–4. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Challita-Eid P.M., Satpayev D., Yang P., An Z., Morrison K., Shostak Y., Raitano A., Nadell R., Liu W., Lortie D.R., et al. Enfortumab vedotin antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 is a highly potent therapeutic agent in multiple preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res. 2016;76:3003–3013. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rosenberg J.E., O’Donnell P.H., Balar A.V., McGregor B.A., Heath E.I., Yu E.Y., Galsky M.D., Hahn N.M., Gartner E.M., Pinelli J.M., et al. Pivotal trial of enfortumab vedotin in urothelial carcinoma after platinum and anti-programmed death 1/programmed death ligand 1 therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019;37:2592–2600. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.01140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rosenberg J., Sridhar S.S., Zhang J., Smith D., Ruether D. EV-101: A Phase I Study of Single-Agent Enfortumab Vedotin in Patients With Nectin-4—Positive Solid Tumors, Including Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma abstract. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020;38:1041. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bellmunt J., De Wit R., Vaughn D.J., Fradet Y., Lee J.L., Fong L., Vogelzang N.J., Climent M.A., Petrylak D.P., Choueiri T.K., et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;376:1015–1026. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rosenberg J.E., Hoffman-Censits J., Powles T., Van Der Heijden M.S., Balar A.V., Necchi A., Dawson N., O’Donnell P.H., Balmanoukian A., Loriot Y., et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: A single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1909–1920. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sharma P., Retz M., Siefker-Radtke A., Baron A., Necchi A., Bedke J., Plimack E.R., Vaena D., Grimm M.O., Bracarda S., et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): A multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:312–322. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30065-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Powles T., O’Donnell P.H., Massard C., Arkenau H.T., Friedlander T.W., Hoimes C.J., Lee J.L., Ong M., Sridhar S.S., Vogelzang N.J., et al. Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Updated results from a phase 1/2 open-label study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Fabre-Lafay S., Monville F., Garrido-Urbani S., Berruyer-Pouyet C., Ginestier C., Reymond N., Finetti P., Sauvan R., Adélaïde J., Geneix J., et al. Nectin-4 is a new histological and serological tumor associated marker for breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-7-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.DeRycke M.S., Pambuccian S.E., Gilks C.B., Kalloger S.E., Ghidouche A., Lopez M., Bliss R.L., Geller M.A., Argenta P.A., Harrington K.M., et al. Nectin 4 overexpression in ovarian cancer tissues and serum: Potential role as a serum biomarker. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2010;134:835–845. doi: 10.1309/AJCPGXK0FR4MHIHB. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nishiwada S., Sho M., Yasuda S., Shimada K., Yamato I., Akahori T., Kinoshita S., Nagai M., Konishi N., Nakajima Y. Nectin-4 expression contributes to tumor proliferation, angiogenesis and patient prognosis in human pancreatic cancer. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015;34:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s13046-015-0144-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zhang Y., Liu S., Wang L., Wu Y., Hao J., Wang Z. A novel PI3K / AKT signaling axis mediates Nectin-4-induced gallbladder cancer cell proliferation, metastasis and tumor growth. Cancer Lett. 2016;375:179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.02.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Fujita K., Uemura M., Yamamoto Y., Tanigawa G., Nakata W., Sato M., Nagahara A., Kiuchi H., Nakai Y., Matsumiya K., et al. Preoperative risk stratification for cancer-specific survival of patients with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma treated by nephroureterectomy. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;20:156–163. doi: 10.1007/s10147-014-0695-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fujita K., Taneishi K., Inamoto T., Ishizuya Y., Takada S., Tsujihata M., Tanigawa G., Minato N., Nakazawa S., Takada T., et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with high-risk upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis. BMC Urol. 2017;17:4–9. doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0305-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Galsky M.D., Arranz J.Á., Bamias A., Davis I.D., De Santis M., Kikuchi E., Garcia-del-Muro X., De Giorgi U., Mencinger M. Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor 130): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2020:1547–1557. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30230-0. in press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Suzman D.L., Agrawal S., Ning Y., Maher V.E., Fernandes L.L., Karuri S., Tang S., Sridhara R., Schroeder J., Goldberg K.B., et al. FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab or Pembrolizumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Ineligible for Cisplatin-Containing Chemotherapy. Oncologist. 2019;24:563–569. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Fujita K., Ujike T., Nagahara A., Uemura M., Tanigawa G., Shimazu K., Fushimi H., Yamaguchi S., Nonomura N. Endoglin expression in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma is associated with intravesical recurrence after radical nephroureterectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2015;22:463–467. doi: 10.1111/iju.12719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Munari E., Fujita K., Faraj S., Chaux A., Gonzalez-Roibon N., Hicks J., Meeker A., Nonomura N., Netto G.J. Dysregulation of mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 2013;44:2668–2676. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Matsuzaki K., Fujita K., Hayashi Y., Matsushita M., Nojima S., Jingushi K., Kato T., Kawashima A., Ujike T., Nagahara A., et al. STAT3 expression is a prognostic marker in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. PLoS ONE. 2018;13 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Yamamoto Y., Fujita K., Munari E., Uemura M., Miyamoto H., Netto G.J. Clinical implication of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in upper tract urothelial carcinoma with negative GATA binding protein 3 expression. Int. J. Urol. 2019;26:678–679. doi: 10.1111/iju.13940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Eich M.L., Tregnago A.C., Faraj S.F., Palsgrove D.N., Fujita K., Bezerra S.M., Munari E., Sharma R., Chaux A., Netto G.J. Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor expression in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2019;474:21–27. doi: 10.1007/s00428-018-2468-0. [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.