Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes in esophageal cancer, yet reliable biomarkers remain lacking. Tissue PD-L1 testing is limited by intratumoral heterogeneity and invasiveness, whereas circulating tumor cells (CTCs) offer a non-invasive alternative. This study evaluated CTC PD-L1 expression as a predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving chemo-immunotherapy. Methods A total of 93 patients with stage III–IV esophageal cancer were enrolled. The primary biomarker analysis was restricted to 59 patients who received chemo-immunotherapy, while 34 patients treated with chemotherapy alone were analyzed separately. Baseline CTCs were isolated and PD-L1 expression assessed, alongside tissue PD-L1 (tPD-L1) by immunohistochemistry. Associations with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using ROC curves and univariate and multivariable Cox regression. Results CTC positivity correlated significantly with advanced stage, metastasis ( p = 0.0411), and larger tumor size ( p = 0.0454). In the chemo-immunotherapy cohort, CTC PD-L1 positivity was associated with a higher ORR (75.0% vs. 29.6%, p < 0.001) and showed moderate predictive ability (AUC = 0.7049, p = 0.0037). CTC PD-L1 positivity was significantly associated with OS (HR = 0.254, p = 0.002), but not significantly with PFS in univariate analysis (HR = 0.546, p = 0.042; Kaplan–Meier p = 0.061). Conversely, tPD-L1 status was not significantly associated with PFS or OS (both p > 0.05). In multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, histological subtype, stage, metastasis, and treatment modality, CTC PD-L1 remained an independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR = 0.488, p = 0.039) and OS (HR = 0.244, p = 0.002). Conclusions Baseline CTC PD-L1 expression was associated with favorable response and OS in patients receiving chemo-immunotherapy, and may complement tissue testing. These exploratory findings require prospective validation in larger cohorts before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: