A Prospective, Multi-institutional, Pathologist-Based Assessment of 4 Immunohistochemistry Assays for PD-L1 Expression in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Four assays registered with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) detect programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) to enrich for patient response to anti-programmed cell death 1 and anti-PD-L1 therapies. The tests use 4 separate PD-L1 antibodies on 2 separate staining platforms and have their own scoring systems, which raises questions about their similarity and the potential interchangeability of the tests. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of 4 PD-L1 platforms, including 2 FDA-cleared assays, 1 test for investigational use only, and 1 laboratory-developed test. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Four serial histologic sections from 90 archival non-small cell lung cancers from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2010, were distributed to 3 sites that performed the following immunohistochemical assays: 28-8 antibody on the Dako Link 48 platform, 22c3 antibody on the Dako Link 48 platform, SP142 antibody on the Ventana Benchmark platform, and E1L3N antibody on the Leica Bond platform. The slides were scanned and scored by 13 pathologists who estimated the percentage of malignant and immune cells expressing PD-L1. Statistical analyses were performed from December 1, 2015, to August 30, 2016, to compare antibodies and pathologists' scoring of tumor and immune cells. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percentages of malignant and immune cells expressing PD-L1. RESULTS: Among the 90 samples, the SP142 assay was an outlier, with a significantly lower mean score of PD-L1 expression in both tumor and immune cells (tumor cells: 22c3, 2.96; 28-8, 3.26; SP142, 1.99; E1L3N, 3.20; overall mean, 2.85; and immune cells: 22c3, 2.15; 28-8, 2.28; SP142, 1.62; E1L3N, 2.28; overall mean, 2.08). Pairwise comparisons showed that the scores from the 28-8 and E1L3N tests were not significantly different but that the 22c3 test showed a slight (mean difference, 0.24-0.30) but statistically significant reduction in labeling of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells. Evaluation of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between antibodies to quantify interassay variability for PD-L1 expression in tumor cells showed high concordance between antibodies for tumor cell scoring (0.813; 95% CI, 0.815-0.839) and lower levels of concordance for immune cell scoring (0.277; 95% CI, 0.222-0.334). When examining variability between pathologists for any single assay, the concordance between pathologists' scoring for PD-L1 expression in tumor cells ranged from ICCs of 0.832 (95% CI, 0.820-0.844) to 0.882 (95% CI, 0.873-0.891) for each assay, while the ICCs from immune cells for each assay ranged from 0.172 (95% CI, 0.156-0.189) to 0.229 (95% CI, 0.211-0.248). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The assay using the SP142 antibody is an outlier that detected significantly less PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and immune cells. The assay for antibody 22c3 showed slight yet statistically significantly lower staining than either 28-8 or E1L3N, but this significance was detected only when using the mean of 13 pathologists' scores. The pathologists showed excellent concordance when scoring tumor cells stained with any antibody but poor concordance for scoring immune cells stained with any antibody. Thus, for tumor cell assessment of PD-L1, 3 of the 4 tests are concordant and reproducible as read by pathologists.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The use of PD-L1 as a biomarker to determine which patients respond to ICI treatment is hindered by challenges associated with standardized quantification of PD-L1 expression.
“The use of PD-L1 as a biomarker to determine which patients respond to ICI-treatment is hindered by challenges associated with standardized quantification of PD-L1 expression7.”
From Predicting the tumor microenvironment composition and immunotherapy response in non-small cell lung cancer from digital histopathology images (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · see citing works
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349 · see citing works
Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer
Brahmer, J. R., Tykodi, S. S., Chow, L. Q. M., Hwu, W.-J., Topalian, S. L., Hwu, P., Drake, C. G., Camacho, L. H., Kauh, J., Odunsi, K., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1200694 · Cited by 7,945 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [2]Topalian SL Hodi FS Brahmer JR Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer N Engl J Med 6 28 2012 366 26 2443 2454 22658127 PMC3544539
- [3]Herbst RS Soria JC Kowanetz M Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients Nature 11 27 2014 515 7528 563 567 25428504 PMC4836193
- [4]Hammond ME Hayes DF Dowsett M American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer Arch Pathol Lab Med 6 2010 134 6 907 922 20524868 PMC3073033
- [5]Hayes DF Bast RC Desch CE Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers J Natl Cancer Inst 10 16 1996 88 20 1456 1466 8841020
- [6]Simon RM Paik S Hayes DF Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers J Natl Cancer Inst 11 4 2009 101 21 1446 1452 19815849 PMC2782246
- [9]Legendre P Species Associations: The Kendall Coefficient of Concordance Revisited. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics Journal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics 2005 10 2 226 245
- [10]Phillips T Simmons P Inzunza HD Development of an automated PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay for non-small cell lung cancer Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 9 2015 23 8 541 549 26317305 PMC4561627
- [11]Taube JM Anders RA Young GD Colocalization of inflammatory response with B7-h1 expression in human melanocytic lesions supports an adaptive resistance mechanism of immune escape Science translational medicine 3 28 2012 4 127 127ra137 PMC3568523 22461641
- [12]Velcheti V Schalper KA Carvajal DE Programmed death ligand-1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer Lab Invest 1 2014 94 1 107 116 24217091 PMC6125250
- [13]Garon EB Rizvi NA Hui R Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 5 21 2015 372 21 2018 2028 25891174
- [14]Borghaei H Paz-Ares L Horn L Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer N Engl J Med 10 22 2015 373 17 1627 1639 26412456 PMC5705936
- [15]Gaule P Smithy JW Toki M A Quantitative Comparison of Antibodies to Programmed Cell Death 1 Ligand 1 JAMA oncology 8 18 2016 PMC5491359 27541827
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma
Weber, J., Mandala, M., Del Vecchio, M., Gogas, H. J., Arance, A. M., Cowey, C. L., Dalle, S., Schenker, M., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Marquez-Rodas, I., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1709030 · Cited by 2,246 · see citing works
PD-L1 as a biomarker of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Doroshow, D. B., Bhalla, S., Beasley, M. B., Sholl, L. M., Kerr, K. M., Gnjatic, S., Wistuba, I. I., Rimm, D. L., Tsao, M. S., & Hirsch, F. R. (2021) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00473-5 · Cited by 1,575 · see citing works
Self-citationRizvi, H., Sanchez-Vega, F., La, K., Chatila, W., Jonsson, P., Halpenny, D., Plodkowski, A., Long, N., Sauter, J. L., Rekhtman, N., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2017.75.3384 · Cited by 1,367 · see citing works
Sezer, A., Kilickap, S., Gümüş, M., Bondarenko, I., Özgüroğlu, M., Gogishvili, M., Turk, H. M., Cicin, I., Bentsion, D., Gladkov, O., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00228-2 · Cited by 789 · see citing works
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice
Baxi, V., Edwards, R., Montalto, M., & Saha, S. (2022) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-021-00919-2 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
Vanguri, R. S., Luo, J., Aukerman, A. T., Egger, J. V., Fong, C. J., Horvat, N., Pagano, A., Araujo-Filho, J. D. A. B., Geneslaw, L., Rizvi, H., et al. (2022) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-022-00416-8 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Nghiem, P., Bhatia, S., Lipson, E. J., Sharfman, W. H., Kudchadkar, R. R., Brohl, A. S., Friedlander, P. A., Daud, A., Kluger, H. M., Reddy, S. A., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.18.01896 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Self-citationKarachaliou, N., Gonzalez-Cao, M., Crespo, G., Drozdowskyj, A., Aldeguer, E., Gimenez-Capitan, A., Teixido, C., Molina-Vila, M. A., Viteri, S., De Los Llanos Gil, M., et al. (2018) · Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology · doi:10.1177/1758834017749748 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
The current state of molecular testing in the treatment of patients with solid tumors, 2019
El‐Deiry, W. S., Goldberg, R. M., Lenz, H., Shields, A. F., Gibney, G. T., Tan, A. R., Brown, J., Eisenberg, B., Heath, E. I., Phuphanich, S., et al. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21560 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Shamai, G., Livne, A., Polónia, A., Sabo, E., Cretu, A., Bar-Sela, G., & Kimmel, R. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34275-9 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Sha, L., Osinski, B. L., Ho, I. Y., Tan, T. L., Willis, C., Weiss, H., Beaubier, N., Mahon, B. M., Taxter, T. J., & Yip, S. S. F. (2019) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.4103/jpi.jpi_24_19 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Lu, J.-C., Zeng, H.-Y., Sun, Q.-M., Meng, Q.-N., Huang, X.-Y., Zhang, P.-F., Yang, X., Peng, R., Gao, C., Wei, C.-Y., et al. (2019) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.36276 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Baxi, V., Lee, G., Duan, C., Pandya, D., Cohen, D. N., Edwards, R., Chang, H., Li, J., Elliott, H., Pokkalla, H., et al. (2022) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-022-01119-2 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Personalizing neoadjuvant immune-checkpoint inhibition in patients with melanoma
Lucas, M. W., Versluis, J. M., Rozeman, E. A., & Blank, C. U. (2023) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-023-00760-3 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Patkar, S., Chen, A., Basnet, A., Bixby, A., Rajendran, R., Chernet, R., Faso, S., Kumar, P. A., Desai, D., El-Zammar, O., et al. (2024) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-024-00765-w · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Refining patient selection for breast cancer immunotherapy: beyond PD-L1
Kossai, M., Radosevic-Robin, N., & Penault-Llorca, F. (2021) · ESMO Open · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100257 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rimm, D. L., Han, G., Taube, J. M., Yi, E. S., Bridge, J. A., Flieder, D. B., Homer, R., West, W. W., Wu, H., Roden, A. C., Fujimoto, J., Yu, H., Anders, R., Kowalewski, A., Rivard, C., Rehman, J., Batenchuk, C., Burns, V., Hirsch, F. R., & Wistuba, I. I.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
- Fox Chase Cancer Center (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Endeavor Health (US)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rimm, David L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Oncology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-08-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1051
- ISSN
- 2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5650234
- OpenAlex
- W2594102731
- Cited by
- 764
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 130 · 2017: 71
- FWCI
- 51.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
- National Cancer Institute (P50CA196530, P30CA016359)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- PD-L1 expression, non-small cell lung cancer, PD-L1 inhibitors, 22C3, SP142, inter-assay variability, laboratory-developed tests
- MeSH terms
- Pathologists, Antibodies, Biological Assay, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Lung Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, B7-H1 Antigen
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