Dataset Information

"Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

ABSTRACT: Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using "PD-L1" as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations "English" and "human". 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.

SUBMITTER: Torlakovic E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6927905 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Torlakovic Emina E Lim Hyun J HJ Adam Julien J Barnes Penny P Bigras Gilbert G Chan Anthony W H AWH Cheung Carol C CC Chung Jin-Haeng JH Couture Christian C Fiset Pierre O PO Fujimoto Daichi D Han Gang G Hirsch Fred R FR Ilie Marius M Ionescu Diana D Li Chao C Munari Enrico E Okuda Katsuhiro K Ratcliffe Marianne J MJ Rimm David L DL Ross Catherine C Røge Rasmus R Scheel Andreas H AH Soo Ross A RA Swanson Paul E PE Tretiakova Maria M To Ka F KF Vainer Gilad W GW Wang Hangjun H Xu Zhaolin Z Zielinski Dirk D Tsao Ming-Sound MS

Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc 20190805 1

Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was con ...[more]

PMID: 31383961

Similar Datasets

Project description:Programmed death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the key FDA-approved predictive marker to identify responders to anti-PD1 axis drugs. Multiple PD-L1 IHC assays with various antibodies and cut points have been used in clinical trials across tumor types. Comparative performance characteristics of these assays have been extensively studied qualitatively but not quantitatively. Here we evaluate the use of a standardized PD-L1 Index tissue microarray (TMA) to objectively determine agreement between antibody assays for PD-L1 applying quantitative digital image analysis. Using a specially constructed Index TMA containing a panel of ten isogenic cell lines in triplicate, we tested identical but independently grown batches of isogenic cells to prove Index TMAs can be produced in large quantities and hence serve as a standardization tool. Then the Index TMAs were evaluated using quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) to validate the TMA itself and also to compare antibodies including E1L3N, SP142 and SP263. Next, an inter-laboratory and inter-assay comparison of 5 PD-L1 chromogenic IHC assays (US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved and lab developed test (LDT)) were performed at 12 sites around the USA. As previously reported, the SP142 FDA assay failed to detect low levels of PD-L1 in cell lines distinguished by the other four assays. The assays for 22C3 FDA, 28-8-FDA, SP263 FDA, and E1L3N LDT were highly similar across sites and all laboratories showed a high consistency over time for all assays using this Index TMA. In conclusion, we were able to objectively quantify PD-L1 expression on a standardized Index TMA using digital image analysis and we confirmed previous subjective assessments of these assays, but now in a multi-institutional setting. We envision commercial use of this Index TMA or similar smaller version as a useful standardization mechanism to compare results between institutions and to identify abnormalities while running routine clinical samples.

Project description:Tumor programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression is a key biomarker to identify patients with non-small cell lung cancer who may have an enhanced response to anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 treatment. Such treatments are used in conjunction with PD-L1 diagnostic immunohistochemistry assays. We developed a computer-aided automated image analysis with customized PD-L1 scoring algorithm that was evaluated via correlation with manual pathologist scores and used to determine comparability across PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays. The image analysis scoring algorithm was developed to quantify the percentage of PD-L1 positive tumor cells on scans of whole-slide images of archival tumor samples from commercially available non-small cell lung cancer cases, stained with four immunohistochemistry PD-L1 assays (Ventana SP263 and SP142 and Dako 22C3 and 28-8). The scans were co-registered and tumor and exclusion annotations aligned to ensure that analysis of each case was restricted to comparable tissue areas. Reference pathologist scores were available from previous studies. F1, a statistical measure of precision and recall, and overall percentage agreement scores were used to assess concordance between pathologist and image analysis scores and between immunohistochemistry assays. In total, 471 PD-L1-evalulable samples were amenable to image analysis scoring. Image analysis and pathologist scores were highly concordant, with F1 scores ranging from 0.8 to 0.9 across varying matched PD-L1 cutoffs. Based on F1 and overall percentage agreement scores (both manual and image analysis scoring), the Ventana SP263 and Dako 28-8 and 22C3 assays were concordant across a broad range of cutoffs; however, the Ventana SP142 assay showed very different characteristics. In summary, a novel automated image analysis scoring algorithm was developed that was highly correlated with pathologist scores. The algorithm permitted quantitative comparison of existing PD-L1 diagnostic assays, confirming previous findings that indicate a high concordance between the Ventana SP263 and Dako 22C3 and 28-8 PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the relative efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus conventional drugs in patients with cancer that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology up to March 2018. REVIEW METHODS:Studies of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) that had available hazard ratios for death based on PD-L1 positivity or negativity were included. The threshold for PD-L1 positivity or negativity was that PD-L1 stained cell accounted for 1% of tumour cells, or tumour and immune cells, assayed by immunohistochemistry staining methods. RESULTS:4174 patients with advanced or metastatic cancers from eight randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Compared with conventional agents, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with significantly prolonged overall survival in both patients that were PD-L1 positive (n=2254, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.74) and PD-L1 negative (1920, 0.80, 0.71 to 0.90). However, the efficacies of PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade treatment in patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative were significantly different (P=0.02 for interaction). Additionally, in both patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative, the long term clinical benefits from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade were observed consistently across interventional agent, cancer histotype, method of randomisation stratification, type of immunohistochemical scoring system, drug target, type of control group, and median follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy is a preferable treatment option over conventional therapy for both patients that are PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. This finding suggests that PD-L1 expression status alone is insufficient in determining which patients should be offered PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy.

Dataset Information

"Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Publications

"Interchangeability" of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets