Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 201

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Quantitative Comparison of Antibodies to Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1

Open access
Gaule, Patricia, Smithy, James W., Toki, Maria, Rehman, Jamaal, Patell-Socha, Farah, Cougot, Delphine, Collin, Philippe, Morrill, Paul, Neumeister, Veronique, Rimm, David L.·2017·JAMA Oncology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Assessment of PD-L1 (programmed cell death 1 ligand 1) expression by immunohistochemical analysis has been used as a predictive diagnostic test to identify responders and guide treatment in trials of the PD-1 (programmed cell death 1) axis inhibitors. The definition of PD-L1 positive lacks standardization, and prediction of response by immunohistochemical analysis is additionally limited by the subjective nature of this technique. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether PD-L1 antibody reagents are interchangeable by quantitatively comparing the expression of the PD-L1 protein. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this immunohistochemistry standardization study, 30 randomly selected cases of lung cancer resected from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2009, were obtained from Yale Pathology Archives with a range of expression of PD-L1. To test for protein measurement, rather than clinical utility, a PD-L1 index tissue microarray, including cell line and tissue controls, was used. The results were then validated on a commercially available, genetically defined PD-L1 engineered cell line array with a range of controlled protein-expressing cell lines using 6 monoclonal antibodies (SP142, E1L3N, 9A11, SP263, 22c3, and 28-8). Protein levels were measured by quantitative immunofluorescence and quantitative chromogenic assessment. Data analysis was performed from September 2015 through May 2016. RESULTS: Concordance between 4 antibodies revealed regression for tumor tissue cores (R2 = 0.42-0.91) and cell line cores (R2 = 0.83-0.97) by quantitative immunofluorescence in the PD-L1 index tissue microarray. All 6 antibodies had high levels of concordance (R2 = 0.76-0.99) when using chromogenic staining in isogenic cell lines. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Because the antibodies are highly concordant, these results suggest that assays based on the use of these antibodies could yield concordant results. They further suggest that previously described differences in PD-L1 expression in tissue are independent of the antibody used and likely attributable to tumor heterogeneity, assay- or platform-specific variables, or other factors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3015

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 201

Metadata

Authors
Gaule, P., Smithy, J. W., Toki, M., Rehman, J., Patell-Socha, F., Cougot, D., Collin, P., Morrill, P., Neumeister, V., & Rimm, D. L.
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Published
2017-02-01
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
256
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2509467148
Cited by
201
References
4
FWCI
17.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Quantitative Comparison of Antibodies to Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3015
The paper
Gaule, P., Smithy, J. W., Toki, M., Rehman, J., Patell-Socha, F., Cougot, D., Collin, P., Morrill, P., Neumeister, V., & Rimm, D. L. (2017). A Quantitative Comparison of Antibodies to Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1. JAMA Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.