Liang Zhao1, Peiqiong Chen2, Kaili Fu1, Jinluan Li1, Yaqing Dai1, Yuhuan Wang2, Yanzhen Zhuang2, Long Sun3, Haojun Chen3, Qin Lin1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Xiamen, China. 2. Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Xiamen, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine & Minnan PET Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Xiamen, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status is a crucial index for identifying patients who will benefit from anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the concordance of Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) between biopsies and matched surgical specimens remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the concordance of PD-L1 expression between image-guided percutaneous biopsies and matched surgical specimens. METHOD: We evaluated 157 patients diagnosed with operable NSCLC on both surgical tissue sections and matched lung biopsies retrospectively. The patients underwent either regular computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy (n = 82) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-guided biopsy (n = 75). The concordance between surgical specimens and lung biopsies for PD-L1 TPS was evaluated using Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 was evaluated in both surgical resected specimens and matched biopsies in the eligible 138 patients. The concordance rate of PD-L1 expression between surgical tissue sections and matched biopsies was fairly high at 84.1% (116/138), and the κ value was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83, P < 0.001). The concordance rate was higher for tissue sections from PET/CT-guided biopsy than for tissue sections from CT-guided biopsy [88.6% (62/70, κ value: 0.81) vs 79.4% (54/68, κ value: 0.66)]. CONCLUSION: PD-L1 TPS was strongly concordant between surgical specimens and matched lung biopsies. Thus, the routine evaluation of PD-L1 expression in diagnostic percutaneous biopsies could be reliable for identifying patients who will benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status is a crucial index for identifying patients who will benefit from anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the concordance of Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) between biopsies and matched surgical specimens remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the concordance of PD-L1 expression between image-guided percutaneous biopsies and matched surgical specimens. METHOD: We evaluated 157 patients diagnosed with operable NSCLC on both surgical tissue sections and matched lung biopsies retrospectively. The patients underwent either regular computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy (n = 82) or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-guided biopsy (n = 75). The concordance between surgical specimens and lung biopsies for PD-L1 TPS was evaluated using Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 was evaluated in both surgical resected specimens and matched biopsies in the eligible 138 patients. The concordance rate of PD-L1 expression between surgical tissue sections and matched biopsies was fairly high at 84.1% (116/138), and the κ value was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83, P < 0.001). The concordance rate was higher for tissue sections from PET/CT-guided biopsy than for tissue sections from CT-guided biopsy [88.6% (62/70, κ value: 0.81) vs 79.4% (54/68, κ value: 0.66)]. CONCLUSION: PD-L1 TPS was strongly concordant between surgical specimens and matched lung biopsies. Thus, the routine evaluation of PD-L1 expression in diagnostic percutaneous biopsies could be reliable for identifying patients who will benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
Authors: Patrick M Forde; Jamie E Chaft; Kellie N Smith; Valsamo Anagnostou; Tricia R Cottrell; Matthew D Hellmann; Marianna Zahurak; Stephen C Yang; David R Jones; Stephen Broderick; Richard J Battafarano; Moises J Velez; Natasha Rekhtman; Zachary Olah; Jarushka Naidoo; Kristen A Marrone; Franco Verde; Haidan Guo; Jiajia Zhang; Justina X Caushi; Hok Yee Chan; John-William Sidhom; Robert B Scharpf; James White; Edward Gabrielson; Hao Wang; Gary L Rosner; Valerie Rusch; Jedd D Wolchok; Taha Merghoub; Janis M Taube; Victor E Velculescu; Suzanne L Topalian; Julie R Brahmer; Drew M Pardoll Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gareth H Williams; Andrew G Nicholson; David R J Snead; Erik Thunnissen; Sylvie Lantuejoul; Paul Cane; Keith M Kerr; Marco Loddo; Marietta L J Scott; Paul W Scorer; Craig Barker Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Erik Thunnissen; Keith M Kerr; Urania Dafni; Lukas Bubendorf; Stephen P Finn; Alex Soltermann; Wojciech Biernat; Richard Cheney; Erik Verbeken; Arne Warth; Antonio Marchetti; Ernst-Jan M Speel; Saraswati Pokharel; Anne Marie Quinn; Kim Monkhorst; Atilio Navarro; Line Bille Madsen; Zoi Tsourti; Thomas Geiger; Roswitha Kammler; Solange Peters; Rolf A Stahel Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Tony S K Mok; Yi-Long Wu; Iveta Kudaba; Dariusz M Kowalski; Byoung Chul Cho; Hande Z Turna; Gilberto Castro; Vichien Srimuninnimit; Konstantin K Laktionov; Igor Bondarenko; Kaoru Kubota; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Jin Zhang; Debra Kush; Gilberto Lopes Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marlon C Rebelatto; Anita Midha; Amita Mistry; Constantine Sabalos; Nicole Schechter; Xia Li; Xiaoping Jin; Keith E Steele; Paul B Robbins; John A Blake-Haskins; Jill Walker Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Nasimudeen R Jabir; Mohd Shahnawaz Khan; Nouf Omar Alafaleq; Huma Naz; Bakrudeen Ali Ahmed Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 2.742