Michelle R Downes1,2, Elzbieta Slodkowska1,2, Nora Katabi3, Achim A Jungbluth3, Bin Xu3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Dpartment of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression by tumour cells (TC) is a mechanism for tumour immune escape through down-regulation of antitumour T cell responses and is a target for immunotherapy. PD-L1 status as a predictor of treatment response has led to the development of multiple biomarkers with different reference cut-offs. We assessed pathologist consistency in evaluating PD-L1 immunopositivity by examining the inter- and intraobserver agreement using various antibody clones and different cancer types. METHODS AND RESULTS: PD-L1 expression in TC and immune cells (IC) was manually scored in 27 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HSCC), 30 urothelial carcinoma (UC) and breast carcinoma (BC) using three commercial clones (SP263, SP142, 22C3) and one platform-independent test (E1L3N). For interobserver agreement, PD-L1 status was evaluated blindly by three pathologists. For intraobserver agreement, PD-L1 expression was re-evaluated following a wash-out period. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), overall percentage agreement (OPA) and κ-values were calculated. Using clinical algorithms, the percentage of PD-L1-positive cases in HSCC, BC and UC were 15-81%, 47-67% and 7-43%, respectively. The percentage of PD-L1 positive cases relied heavily on the algorithm/cut-off values used. Almost perfect interobserver agreement was achieved using SP263 and E1L3N in HSCC, 22C3, SP142 and E1L3N in BC and 22C3 in UC. The SP142 clone in UC and HSCC showed moderate agreement and was associated with lower ICC and decreased intraobserver concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent inter- and intraobserver agreement can be achieved using SP263, 22C3 and E1L3N, whereas PD-L1 scoring using SP142 clone is associated with a higher level of subjectivity.
AIMS: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression by tumour cells (TC) is a mechanism for tumour immune escape through down-regulation of antitumour T cell responses and is a target for immunotherapy. PD-L1 status as a predictor of treatment response has led to the development of multiple biomarkers with different reference cut-offs. We assessed pathologist consistency in evaluating PD-L1 immunopositivity by examining the inter- and intraobserver agreement using various antibody clones and different cancer types. METHODS AND RESULTS:PD-L1 expression in TC and immune cells (IC) was manually scored in 27 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HSCC), 30 urothelial carcinoma (UC) and breast carcinoma (BC) using three commercial clones (SP263, SP142, 22C3) and one platform-independent test (E1L3N). For interobserver agreement, PD-L1 status was evaluated blindly by three pathologists. For intraobserver agreement, PD-L1 expression was re-evaluated following a wash-out period. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), overall percentage agreement (OPA) and κ-values were calculated. Using clinical algorithms, the percentage of PD-L1-positive cases in HSCC, BC and UC were 15-81%, 47-67% and 7-43%, respectively. The percentage of PD-L1 positive cases relied heavily on the algorithm/cut-off values used. Almost perfect interobserver agreement was achieved using SP263 and E1L3N in HSCC, 22C3, SP142 and E1L3N in BC and 22C3 in UC. The SP142 clone in UC and HSCC showed moderate agreement and was associated with lower ICC and decreased intraobserver concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent inter- and intraobserver agreement can be achieved using SP263, 22C3 and E1L3N, whereas PD-L1 scoring using SP142 clone is associated with a higher level of subjectivity.
Authors: A D Colevas; R Bahleda; F Braiteh; A Balmanoukian; I Brana; N G Chau; I Sarkar; L Molinero; W Grossman; F Kabbinavar; M Fassò; C O'Hear; J Powderly Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Anne Dyhl-Polk; Anne Roslind; Eva Balslev; Dorte Nielsen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Chiyun Wang; Elan Hahn; Elzbieta Slodkowska; Antoine Eskander; Danny Enepekides; Kevin Higgins; Danny Vesprini; Stanley K Liu; Michelle R Downes; Bin Xu Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christophe Massard; Michael S Gordon; Sunil Sharma; Saeed Rafii; Zev A Wainberg; Jason Luke; Tyler J Curiel; Gerardo Colon-Otero; Omid Hamid; Rachel E Sanborn; Peter H O'Donnell; Alexandra Drakaki; Winston Tan; John F Kurland; Marlon C Rebelatto; Xiaoping Jin; John A Blake-Haskins; Ashok Gupta; Neil H Segal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hua Guo; Qingqing Ding; Yun Gong; Michael Z Gilcrease; Min Zhao; Jun Zhao; Dawen Sui; Yun Wu; Hui Chen; Hui Liu; Jinxia Zhang; Erika Resetkova; Stacy L Moulder; Wei-Lien Wang; Lei Huo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 6.466