Aurelia Noske1, Johannes U Ammann2, Daniel-Christoph Wagner3, Carsten Denkert4, Annette Lebeau5,6, Peter Sinn7, Hans-Heinrich Kreipe8, Ulrich Sommer9, Gustavo Baretton9, Katja Steiger1, Marion Kiechle10, Stefanie Hieke-Schulz2, Mike Flores11, Wilfried Roth3, Wilko Weichert1. 1. Technical University of Munich, Institute of Pathology, Munich, Germany. 2. Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany. 3. Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, Philipps-University Marburg and University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 5. Private Group Practice for Pathology Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. 6. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 7. Division of Gynecopathology, University Institute of Pathology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Institute of Pathology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 9. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 10. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 11. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Studies in various cancer types have demonstrated discordance between results from different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) assays. Here, we compare the reproducibility and analytical concordance of four clinically developed assays for assessing PD-L1-positivity in tumour-infiltrating immune cells in the tumour area (PD-L1-IC-positivity) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Primary TNBC resection specimens (n = 30) were selected based on their PD-L1-IC-positivity per VENTANA SP142 (<1%: 15 cases; 1-5%: seven cases; >5%: eight cases). Serial histological sections were stained for PD-L1 using VENTANA SP142, VENTANA SP263, DAKO 22C3 and DAKO 28-8. PD-L1-IC-positivity and tumour cell expression (≥1 versus <1%) were scored by trained readers from seven sites using online virtual microscopy. The adjusted mean of PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP263 (7.8%) was significantly higher than those for the other three assays (3.7-4.9%). Differences in adjusted means were statistically significant between SP263 and the other three assays (P < 0.0001) but not between the three remaining assays when excluding SP263 (P = 0.0961-0.6522). Intra-class correlation coefficients revealed moderate-to-strong inter-reader agreement for each assay (0.460-0.805) and poor-to-strong inter-assay agreement for each reader (0.298-0.678) on PD-L1-IC-positivity. CONCLUSIONS: In this first multicentre study of different PD-L1 assays in TNBC, we show that PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP142, 22C3 and 28-8 was reproducible and analytically concordant, indicating that these three assays may be analytically interchangeable. The relevance of the higher PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP263 should be further investigated.
AIMS: Studies in various cancer types have demonstrated discordance between results from different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) assays. Here, we compare the reproducibility and analytical concordance of four clinically developed assays for assessing PD-L1-positivity in tumour-infiltrating immune cells in the tumour area (PD-L1-IC-positivity) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Primary TNBC resection specimens (n = 30) were selected based on their PD-L1-IC-positivity per VENTANA SP142 (<1%: 15 cases; 1-5%: seven cases; >5%: eight cases). Serial histological sections were stained for PD-L1 using VENTANA SP142, VENTANA SP263, DAKO 22C3 and DAKO 28-8. PD-L1-IC-positivity and tumour cell expression (≥1 versus <1%) were scored by trained readers from seven sites using online virtual microscopy. The adjusted mean of PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP263 (7.8%) was significantly higher than those for the other three assays (3.7-4.9%). Differences in adjusted means were statistically significant between SP263 and the other three assays (P < 0.0001) but not between the three remaining assays when excluding SP263 (P = 0.0961-0.6522). Intra-class correlation coefficients revealed moderate-to-strong inter-reader agreement for each assay (0.460-0.805) and poor-to-strong inter-assay agreement for each reader (0.298-0.678) on PD-L1-IC-positivity. CONCLUSIONS: In this first multicentre study of different PD-L1 assays in TNBC, we show that PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP142, 22C3 and 28-8 was reproducible and analytically concordant, indicating that these three assays may be analytically interchangeable. The relevance of the higher PD-L1-IC-positivity for SP263 should be further investigated.
Authors: Nicole M Myer; Kohei Shitara; Hyun C Chung; Florian Lordick; Ronan J Kelly; Zsolt Szabo; Z Alexander Cao; Stephen Leong; David H Ilson; Wilko Weichert Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.322