Programmed death ligand-1 expression and its prognostic role in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Table 1 Clinicopathologic characteristics of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients n (%)

Characteristics	Total(n = 200)	PD-L1 status		P value
		Negative(n = 133)	Positive(n = 67)
Age, median years (range)	65 (41-83)	65 (50-83)	64 (41-82)	0.5191
Sex
Male	188 (94.0)	125 (94.0)	63 (94.0)
Female	12 (6.0)	8 (6.0)	4 (6.0)	1.000
Smoking history	168 (84.9)	110 (84.0)	58 (86.6)	0.630
Alcoholic intake	166 (84.3)	110 (84.0)	56 (84.9)	0.873
Stage
I	66 (33.0)	47 (35.3)	19 (28.4)
II	59 (29.5)	41 (30.8)	18 (26.9)
III	71 (35.5)	44 (33.1)	27 (40.3)
IV	4 (2.0)	1 (0.8)	3 (4.5)	0.200
Differentiation
W/D	41 (23.0)	36 (27.1)	10 (14.9)
M/D	131 (65.5)	83 (62.4)	48 (71.6)
P/D	23 (11.5)	14 (10.5)	9 (13.4)	0.152
Treatment
Surgery alone	122 (61.0)	83 (62.5)	39 (58.2)
Surgery → Adj.	58 (29.0)	38 (28.6)	20 (29.9)
Neoadj. → Surgery	14 (7.0)	9 (6.8)	5 (7.5)
Neoadj. → Surgery → Adj.	6 (3.0)	3 (2.3)	3 (4.5)	0.927
Surgery results
R0 resection	176 (88.0)	121 (91.0)	55 (82.1)
R1, R2 resection	24 (12.0)	12 (9.0)	12 (17.9)	0.068
p16
Negative	179 (89.5)	121 (91.0)	58 (86.6)
Positive	21 (10.5)	12 (9.0)	9 (13.4)	0.616
H-score
< 50	158 (79.0)	112 (84.2)	46 (68.7)
≥ 50, < 100	31 (15.5)	16 (12.0)	15 (22.4)
≥ 100, < 200	11 (5.5)	5 (3.8)	6 (9.0)	0.036
Follow-up duration, median months (range)	33.2 (0.6-178.7)	33.9 (0.6-176.7)	31.7 (2.3-178.7)	0.7901

¹Estimated by Mann-Whitney test. N: Number; W/D: Well differentiated; M/D: Moderately differentiated; P/D: Poorly differentiated; Adj.: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Neoadj.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for clinicopathologic factors affecting programmed death ligand-1 expression

Factors	Ref.	OR (95%CI)	P value
Univariate analysis
Age1		0.98 (0.94-1.02)	0.323
Sex	Male vs Female	1.01 (0.29-3.48)	0.99
Smoking	Yes vs No	1.23 (0.53-2.86)	0.63
Alcohol	Yes vs No	1.07 (0.47-2.42)	0.873
CEA1		0.86 (0.66-1.11)	0.234
TNM stage	III/IV vs I/II	1.59 (0.87-2.89)	0.133
Differentiation	M/D or P/D vs W/D	2.12 (0.98-4.58)	0.058
Neoadj.	Yes vs No	1.37 (0.53-3.53)	0.517
p16	Positive vs Negative	1.56 (0.62-3.92)	0.34
c-Met H-score	≥ 50 vs < 50	2.43 (1.21-4.88)	0.012
Multivariate analysis
Differentiation	M/D or P/D vs W/D	2.01 (0.92-4.40)	0.08
c-Met H-score	≥ 50 vs < 50	2.34 (1.16-4.72)	0.017

¹Treated as continuous variables. OR: Odds ratio; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; TNM: Tumor-node-metastasis; W/D: Well differentiated; M/D: Moderately differentiated; P/D: Poorly differentiated; Neoadj.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Table 3 Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis for clinicopathologic factors overall survival

Factors	Ref.	HR (95%CI)	P value
Univariate analysis
Age1		1.03 (1.00-1.05)	0.023
Sex	Male vs Female	6.29 (1.55-25.4)	0.010
Smoking	Yes vs No	1.36 (0.80-2.33)	0.261
Alcohol	Yes vs No	1.30 (0.80-2.13)	0.286
CEA1		1.07 (0.95-1.20)	0.269
TNM stage	III/IV vs I/II	2.77 (1.97-3.90)	< 0.001
Differentiation	M/D or P/D vs W/D	1.23 (0.82-1.85)	0.308
Neoadj.	Yes vs No	1.70 (1.04-2.78)	0.032
Adj.	Yes vs No	1.73 (1.23-2.45)	0.002
Operation result	R1/R2 vs R0	3.53 (2.25-5.52)	< 0.001
p16	Positive vs Negative	0.49 (0.24-1.01)	0.053
c-Met H-score	≥ 50 vs < 50	1.12 (0.73-1.72)	0.601
Multivariate analysis
Age1		1.03 (1.01-1.06)	0.001
Sex	Male vs Female	4.31 (1.06-17.6)	0.042
TNM stage	III/IV vs I/II	2.52 (1.64-3.87)	< 0.001
Neoadj.	Yes vs No	1.26 (0.73-2.19)	0.405
Adj.	Yes vs No	0.91 (0.58-1.44)	0.685
Operation result	R1/R2 vs R0	2.53 (1.48-4.32)	0.001
p16	Positive vs Negative	0.51 (0.25-1.05)	0.069

¹Treated as continuous variables. CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; TNM: Tumor-node-metastasis; W/D: Well differentiated; M/D: Moderately differentiated; P/D: Poorly differentiated; Neoadj.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Adj.: Adjuvant chemotherapy.