Min Ye1,2, Dan Huang1,2, Qiongyan Zhang2,3, Weiwei Weng1,2, Cong Tan1,2, Guangqi Qin1, Wenhua Jiang1, Weiqi Sheng1,2, Lei Wang1,2. 1. Department of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong'an Road, Shanghai, 200032 China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032 China. 3. Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032 China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression determines the eligibility for anti-PD-1 treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer, but evidence indicates that PD-L1 staining is heterogeneous. Patients who are ineligible for radical surgery could be tested for PD-L1 expression with biopsy staining, but it is unclear if a small biopsy is representative of the PD-L1 status of the whole tumor. The aim of our study was to determine how many biopsy specimens are needed to accurately reflect the objective status of PD-L1 expression in whole sections. METHODS: We built tissue microarrays (TMAs) as substitutes for core biopsies, collecting 6 cores per case from 152 gastric cancer specimens. All of the slides and TMAs underwent PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining, and PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of tumor cells or immune cells was defined as positive. RESULTS: It was necessary to randomly select multiple cores from TMAs to reach a suitable agreement rate (> 90%) and Cohen's κ value (> 0.8) between TMAs and whole sections. We defined the PD-L1 staining status from the whole section as the standard. The evaluation of five randomly selected cores from TMAs agreed well with the evaluation of whole sections. The sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) were 0.93, 0.92, and 0.922 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.863-0.982), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PD-L1 expression among TMA samples had different degrees of relevance to the corresponding surgical specimens, which indicates that at least five biopsies might be necessary to characterize patients taking anti-PD-1 treatment.
BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression determines the eligibility for anti-PD-1 treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer, but evidence indicates that PD-L1 staining is heterogeneous. Patients who are ineligible for radical surgery could be tested for PD-L1 expression with biopsy staining, but it is unclear if a small biopsy is representative of the PD-L1 status of the whole tumor. The aim of our study was to determine how many biopsy specimens are needed to accurately reflect the objective status of PD-L1 expression in whole sections. METHODS: We built tissue microarrays (TMAs) as substitutes for core biopsies, collecting 6 cores per case from 152 gastric cancer specimens. All of the slides and TMAs underwent PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining, and PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of tumor cells or immune cells was defined as positive. RESULTS: It was necessary to randomly select multiple cores from TMAs to reach a suitable agreement rate (> 90%) and Cohen's κ value (> 0.8) between TMAs and whole sections. We defined the PD-L1 staining status from the whole section as the standard. The evaluation of five randomly selected cores from TMAs agreed well with the evaluation of whole sections. The sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) were 0.93, 0.92, and 0.922 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.863-0.982), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PD-L1 expression among TMA samples had different degrees of relevance to the corresponding surgical specimens, which indicates that at least five biopsies might be necessary to characterize patients taking anti-PD-1 treatment.
Authors: Erik A Dill; Alejandro A Gru; Kristen A Atkins; Lisa A Friedman; Margaret E Moore; Timothy N Bullock; Janet V Cross; Patrick M Dillon; Anne M Mills Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Hedvig Elfving; Johanna Sofia Margareta Mattsson; Cecilia Lindskog; Max Backman; Uwe Menzel; Patrick Micke Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Patrick A Ott; Yung-Jue Bang; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Albiruni R Abdul Razak; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Charles Soria; Hope S Rugo; Roger B Cohen; Bert H O'Neil; Janice M Mehnert; Juanita Lopez; Toshihiko Doi; Emilie M J van Brummelen; Razvan Cristescu; Ping Yang; Kenneth Emancipator; Karen Stein; Mark Ayers; Andrew K Joe; Jared K Lunceford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anna D Wagner; Wilfried Grothe; Johannes Haerting; Gerhard Kleber; Axel Grothey; Wolfgang E Fleig Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ji Hyun Yang; Hyunho Kim; Sang Young Roh; Myung Ah Lee; Jae Myung Park; Han Hee Lee; Cho Hyun Park; Han Hong Lee; Eun Sun Jung; Sung Hak Lee; Young Joon Lee; Moon Hyung Choi; Okran Kim; In-Ho Kim Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Yelena Y Janjigian; Johanna Bendell; Emiliano Calvo; Joseph W Kim; Paolo A Ascierto; Padmanee Sharma; Patrick A Ott; Katriina Peltola; Dirk Jaeger; Jeffry Evans; Filippo de Braud; Ian Chau; Christopher T Harbison; Cecile Dorange; Marina Tschaika; Dung T Le Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katherine I Zhou; Bryan Peterson; Anthony Serritella; Joseph Thomas; Natalie Reizine; Stephanie Moya; Carol Tan; Yan Wang; Daniel V T Catenacci Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joseph Chao; Ting-Fang He; Massimo D'Apuzzo; Yi-Jen Chen; Paul Frankel; Michael Tajon; Helen Chen; Shawn Solomon; Samuel J Klempner; Marwan Fakih; Peter Lee Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-14