Si Kei Lou1,2, Hyang Mi Ko1,2, Tomonari Kinoshita3, Scott MacDonald1, Jessica Weiss4, Katarzyna Czarnecka-Kujawa3,5, Scott L Boerner1,2, Kazuhiro Yasufuku3,6, Ming-Sound Tsao1,2, Joerg Schwock7,8. 1. Division of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Thoracic Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Biostatistics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Respirology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Division of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, joerg.schwock@uhn.ca. 8. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, joerg.schwock@uhn.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy in advanced stage lung cancer patients. However, data permitting direct performance comparison between cytology and surgical specimen types are limited since both specimens from a single tumor site are infrequently available. In addition, alcohol fixation used with cytology specimens requires technical validation of the PD-L1 IHC assay before clinical use. We here report our experience with implementation of the PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM assay for cytologic samples at a large tertiary cancer center. STUDY DESIGN: Archival formalin-fixed (FF), paraffin-embedded cell blocks (CBs) and subsequent lung tumor resections (LTRs) from the same anatomical site were used for a direct comparison of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores (TPSs). TPS values were independently determined by one surgical lung pathologist and two cytopathologists blinded to the specimen pairs. An interim analysis was performed to facilitate the pooling of expertise among observers. After PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM implementation for FF cytology specimens, dual-processed samples were used for a prospective technical validation of CytoLyt® prefixation (CF). Digital image analysis was performed for a subset of dual-processed specimens. RESULTS: Eighty-one CBs and LTRs were included for comparison of the specimen types. PD-L1 assessment in CBs had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 88.9/72.8, 66.7/73.5, 95.2/72.3, 80.0/65.8, and 90.9/79.1% for the ≥50/≥1% cutoff, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.90), and it improved after interim analysis (before: 0.79 and after: 0.92). The overall concordance between CF and FF for the categories defined by the ≥50/≥1% cutoff values was 90.4% (95% CI: 79.0, 96.8). Similar assay performance was confirmed by digital analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM shows good reliability if used with CB preparations. CF does not impact assay results significantly. Clinical validation with outcome data is needed, and digital methods of assessment should be further investigated.
BACKGROUND:Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy in advanced stage lung cancerpatients. However, data permitting direct performance comparison between cytology and surgical specimen types are limited since both specimens from a single tumor site are infrequently available. In addition, alcohol fixation used with cytology specimens requires technical validation of the PD-L1 IHC assay before clinical use. We here report our experience with implementation of the PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM assay for cytologic samples at a large tertiary cancer center. STUDY DESIGN: Archival formalin-fixed (FF), paraffin-embedded cell blocks (CBs) and subsequent lung tumor resections (LTRs) from the same anatomical site were used for a direct comparison of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores (TPSs). TPS values were independently determined by one surgical lung pathologist and two cytopathologists blinded to the specimen pairs. An interim analysis was performed to facilitate the pooling of expertise among observers. After PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM implementation for FF cytology specimens, dual-processed samples were used for a prospective technical validation of CytoLyt® prefixation (CF). Digital image analysis was performed for a subset of dual-processed specimens. RESULTS: Eighty-one CBs and LTRs were included for comparison of the specimen types. PD-L1 assessment in CBs had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 88.9/72.8, 66.7/73.5, 95.2/72.3, 80.0/65.8, and 90.9/79.1% for the ≥50/≥1% cutoff, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.90), and it improved after interim analysis (before: 0.79 and after: 0.92). The overall concordance between CF and FF for the categories defined by the ≥50/≥1% cutoff values was 90.4% (95% CI: 79.0, 96.8). Similar assay performance was confirmed by digital analysis. CONCLUSIONS:PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM shows good reliability if used with CB preparations. CF does not impact assay results significantly. Clinical validation with outcome data is needed, and digital methods of assessment should be further investigated.
Authors: H Wang; J Agulnik; G Kasymjanova; A Wang; P Jiménez; V Cohen; D Small; C Pepe; L Sakr; P O Fiset; M Auger; S Camilleri-Broet; M Alam El Din; G Chong; L van Kempen; A Spatz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Edward B Garon; Naiyer A Rizvi; Rina Hui; Natasha Leighl; Ani S Balmanoukian; Joseph Paul Eder; Amita Patnaik; Charu Aggarwal; Matthew Gubens; Leora Horn; Enric Carcereny; Myung-Ju Ahn; Enriqueta Felip; Jong-Seok Lee; Matthew D Hellmann; Omid Hamid; Jonathan W Goldman; Jean-Charles Soria; Marisa Dolled-Filhart; Ruth Z Rutledge; Jin Zhang; Jared K Lunceford; Reshma Rangwala; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Charlotte Roach; Kenneth Emancipator; Leena Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andreas H Scheel; Manfred Dietel; Lukas C Heukamp; Korinna Jöhrens; Thomas Kirchner; Simone Reu; Josef Rüschoff; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Peter Schirmacher; Markus Tiemann; Arne Warth; Wilko Weichert; Rieke N Fischer; Jürgen Wolf; Reinhard Buettner Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: David L Rimm; Gang Han; Janis M Taube; Eunhee S Yi; Julia A Bridge; Douglas B Flieder; Robert Homer; William W West; Hong Wu; Anja C Roden; Junya Fujimoto; Hui Yu; Robert Anders; Ashley Kowalewski; Christopher Rivard; Jamaal Rehman; Cory Batenchuk; Virginia Burns; Fred R Hirsch; Ignacio I Wistuba Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Vanda F Torous; Deepa Rangachari; Benjamin P Gallant; Meghan Shea; Daniel B Costa; Paul A VanderLaan Journal: J Am Soc Cytopathol Date: 2018-02-16
Authors: Mohammed S I Mansour; Kajsa Ericson Lindquist; Tomas Seidal; Ulrich Mager; Rikard Mohlin; Lena Tran; Kim Hejny; Benjamin Holmgren; Despoina Violidaki; Katalin Dobra; Annika Dejmek; Maria Planck; Hans Brunnström Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.319