Table 3. Existing literature on the topic of tumoral pre-treatment PD-L1 as a biomarker for PFS.
Author, region, year | EGFR+ patients | PD-L1 antibody | PD-L1 levels | PFS | Definition of progression | OS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soo (23), Seoul, 2017 | 70 with available PD-L1 | SP142 | Continuous H-score | Shorter PFS for higher H-scores (P=0.017) | NS | No association between higher PD-L1 scores and OS (P=0.795) |
Shorter PFS for 10% highest PD-L1 H-scores (P<0.001) | ||||||
Su (24), Guangdong, 2018 | 84 with available PD-L1 | SP142 | TPS of strong (TC ≥50% or IC ≥10%), weak (TC 5–49% or IC 5–9%) or negative (TC and IC <5%) | Shorter PFS for strong expression vs. weak/negative (P<0.001) | NS | Not included |
Yoon (25), Seoul & Busan, 2020 | 131 | 22C3 | TPS of <1%, 1–49% or ≥50% | Shorter PFS for >50% vs. <1% (P=0.002) | RECIST 1.1 | TPS ≥50% not associated with OS (P=0.181) |
Shorter PFS for >50% vs. 1–49% (P=0.002) | ||||||
Yoneshima (31), Fukuoka, 2018 | 71, but pooled with 8 ALK+ | 22C3 | TPS of <1%, 1–49% or ≥50% | Shorter PFS for PD-L1 >1% vs. to <1% (P=0.016) | NS | Not included |
No significant difference in PFS between when comparing all three groups (P value not listed) | ||||||
Kim (27), Seoul, 2020 | 66 | SP263 + 22C3 + SP142 | Positive/negative. Cut-off: ≥1% of viable tumor cells exhibited membrane staining | No significant difference in PFS for positive vs. negative (P=0.529) | NS | No difference in OS (P=0.150) |
Tang (28), Guangzhou, 2015 | 99 | EIL3N | Positive/negative. Cut-off: H-score of ≥5 | No significant difference in PFS positive vs. negative (P=0.990) | NS | No difference (P=0.932) |
Lin (22), Fuzhou, 2015 | 56 | Ab58810 | Positive/negative. Cut-off: mean H-score of all patients | Longer PFS for positive vs. negative (P=0.001) | NS, RECIST 1.1 for ORR/DCR | Longer OS for positive patient (P=0.004) |
Yang (26), Zhongzheng, 2020 | 153 | 22C3 | TPS of <1%, 1–49% or ≥50% | Shorter PFS for ≥50% vs. 0% (P=0.009) | RECIST 1.1 | No difference (P=0.605) |
Shorter PFS for ≥50% vs. 1–49% (P=0.044) | ||||||
Shorter PFS for ≥50% vs. 0–49% (P=0.007) | ||||||
D’incecco (17), Italy (not further specified), 2015 | 54 | Ab58810 | Positive/negative. Cut-off: staining intensity of 2 in more than 5% of tumor cells | Longer time to progression for positive vs. negative (P=0.01) | NS | No difference (P=0.75) |
Matsumoto (32), Osaka, 2019 | 52 | 28-8 | High (≥50%) or low (0–49%) | Shorter PFS for high PD-L1 vs. low (P=0.0059) | RECIST 1.1 | Not included |
Kobayashi (33), Tokyo, 2018 | 32 | Unclear | Positive/negative. Cut-off: staining intensity of 3 in more than 5% of cells | No significant difference in PFS for positive vs. negative (P=0.58) | NS | No difference |
Chang (34), New Taipei & Yilan County & Yanchao District, 2021 | 114 | 22C3 | TPS of <1%, 1–49% or ≥50% | No significant difference in PFS between groups (P=0.738) | RECIST 1.1 | No difference (P=0.769) |
Kang (35), Seoul, 2021 | 108 | 22C3, SP263 | TPS of <1%, 1–49% or ≥50% | Significantly shorter PFS for strong vs. negative (P=0.001) | RECIST 1.1 | Not included |
Inomata (36), 2022, Toyama | 49 | 22C3 | Positive/negative. Cut-off: TPS of 1% | Significant impact of PD-L1 on time on treatment in adjusted analysis (P=0.022) | RECIST 1.1 or clinical judgment | Not included |
Correlation with OS for included studies is also listed, as well as antibodies, cut-off values and definition of progression for each study. PD-L1, programmed death ligand-1; PFS, progression free survival; OS, overall survival; TPS, tumor proportion score; TC, tumor cells; IC, immune cells; NS, not specified.