Demonstrates the predictive value of PD-L1-positive circulating tumor cells for clinical outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, suggesting their relevance in treatment decisions.
Purpose This study was conducted to assess the clinical significance of programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of PD-(L)1 inhibitor-based treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Experimental design We enrolled 59 patients with unresectable HCC who received immunotherapy-based treatment and analyzed CTCs, PD-L1 + CTCs and molecules in peripheral blood. An innovative telomerase reverse transcriptase-based method was applied to detect specific CTCs. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to evaluate clinical outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results CTCs were detected in 86.4% (51/59) of patients, with a PD-L1-positive rate of 83.7% (41/49). Compared with the “PD-L1 + CTC Low” group, the “PD-L1 + CTC High” group had significantly shorter PFS (median PFS: 7.72 vs 16.1 months, p=0.037) and shorter OS (median OS: 13.89 vs 36.97 months, p=0.031). The “PD-L1 + CTC Fewer & Low” group had the longest survival outcomes (median PFS: 17.03 months, median OS: 36.97 months), whereas the “PD-L1 + CTC More & High” group had the poorest outcomes (median PFS: 5.3 months, median OS: 10.77 months) (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that the PD-L1 + CTC count and ratio were an independent predictor of PFS. Significant correlations were found between PD-L1 + CTC and several immune-related molecules, such as immune checkpoint molecules (CD28, TIM-3, and CD80) and regulatory factors (BDNF, and BLTA). Conclusions PD-L1 + CTCs are potential indicators correlating with the shorter PFS and OS of immunotherapy-based treatment in patients with advanced HCC. The “PD-L1 + CTC Low & Fewer” classification was associated with better clinical outcomes and immune-related molecules.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: