Implementation of PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM in Cell Block Preparations of Lung Cancer: Concordance with Surgical Resections and Technical Validation of CytoLyt® Prefixation.
Biomarker
Cell blocks
Concordance
Immunohistochemistry
Lung cytopathology
Programmed death ligand-1
Pulmonary
Validation
Journal
Acta cytologica
ISSN: 1938-2650
Titre abrégé: Acta Cytol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0370307
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
accepted:
29
04
2020
pubmed:
1
7
2020
medline:
13
11
2020
entrez:
30
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy in advanced stage lung cancer patients. However, data permitting direct performance comparison between cytology and surgical specimen types are limited since both specimens from a single tumor site are infrequently available. In addition, alcohol fixation used with cytology specimens requires technical validation of the PD-L1 IHC assay before clinical use. We here report our experience with implementation of the PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM assay for cytologic samples at a large tertiary cancer center. Archival formalin-fixed (FF), paraffin-embedded cell blocks (CBs) and subsequent lung tumor resections (LTRs) from the same anatomical site were used for a direct comparison of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores (TPSs). TPS values were independently determined by one surgical lung pathologist and two cytopathologists blinded to the specimen pairs. An interim analysis was performed to facilitate the pooling of expertise among observers. After PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM implementation for FF cytology specimens, dual-processed samples were used for a prospective technical validation of CytoLyt® prefixation (CF). Digital image analysis was performed for a subset of dual-processed specimens. Eighty-one CBs and LTRs were included for comparison of the specimen types. PD-L1 assessment in CBs had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 88.9/72.8, 66.7/73.5, 95.2/72.3, 80.0/65.8, and 90.9/79.1% for the ≥50/≥1% cutoff, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.90), and it improved after interim analysis (before: 0.79 and after: 0.92). The overall concordance between CF and FF for the categories defined by the ≥50/≥1% cutoff values was 90.4% (95% CI: 79.0, 96.8). Similar assay performance was confirmed by digital analysis. PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM shows good reliability if used with CB preparations. CF does not impact assay results significantly. Clinical validation with outcome data is needed, and digital methods of assessment should be further investigated.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is used as biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy in advanced stage lung cancer patients. However, data permitting direct performance comparison between cytology and surgical specimen types are limited since both specimens from a single tumor site are infrequently available. In addition, alcohol fixation used with cytology specimens requires technical validation of the PD-L1 IHC assay before clinical use. We here report our experience with implementation of the PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM assay for cytologic samples at a large tertiary cancer center.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Archival formalin-fixed (FF), paraffin-embedded cell blocks (CBs) and subsequent lung tumor resections (LTRs) from the same anatomical site were used for a direct comparison of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores (TPSs). TPS values were independently determined by one surgical lung pathologist and two cytopathologists blinded to the specimen pairs. An interim analysis was performed to facilitate the pooling of expertise among observers. After PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM implementation for FF cytology specimens, dual-processed samples were used for a prospective technical validation of CytoLyt® prefixation (CF). Digital image analysis was performed for a subset of dual-processed specimens.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty-one CBs and LTRs were included for comparison of the specimen types. PD-L1 assessment in CBs had an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 88.9/72.8, 66.7/73.5, 95.2/72.3, 80.0/65.8, and 90.9/79.1% for the ≥50/≥1% cutoff, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.90), and it improved after interim analysis (before: 0.79 and after: 0.92). The overall concordance between CF and FF for the categories defined by the ≥50/≥1% cutoff values was 90.4% (95% CI: 79.0, 96.8). Similar assay performance was confirmed by digital analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM shows good reliability if used with CB preparations. CF does not impact assay results significantly. Clinical validation with outcome data is needed, and digital methods of assessment should be further investigated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32599583
pii: 000508628
doi: 10.1159/000508628
pmc: PMC7677989
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CD274 protein, human
0
pembrolizumab
DPT0O3T46P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
577-587Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2017 Dec;6(Suppl 1):S51-S54
pubmed: 29299411
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2017 Mar;36(2):146-153
pubmed: 27362903
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;29(6):1417-1422
pubmed: 29659668
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2018-28
pubmed: 25891174
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627-39
pubmed: 26412456
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2018 May-Jun;7(3):133-141
pubmed: 29713584
Lung Cancer. 2018 Dec;126:9-14
pubmed: 30527198
Mod Pathol. 2016 Oct;29(10):1165-72
pubmed: 27389313
Cytojournal. 2018 Dec 24;15:29
pubmed: 30662515
Cancer Res. 2013 Mar 15;73(6):1733-41
pubmed: 23288508
Cancer Cytopathol. 2020 Feb;128(2):100-106
pubmed: 31851430
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017 Aug;25(7):453-459
pubmed: 28549039
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Feb;12(2):208-222
pubmed: 27913228
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Dec;125(12):896-907
pubmed: 29024471
Cancer Cytopathol. 2019 Jul;127(7):470-480
pubmed: 31245924
Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 May;126(5):342-352
pubmed: 29499101
Cancer Cytopathol. 2019 Nov;127(11):680-683
pubmed: 31116504
Cancer Cytopathol. 2017 Jul;125(7):521-528
pubmed: 28472551
Cancer Cytopathol. 2019 Jul;127(7):447-457
pubmed: 31025831
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Dec;140(12):1331-1337
pubmed: 27588333
Lung Cancer. 2019 Oct;136:1-5
pubmed: 31421256
Am J Clin Pathol. 2019 Mar 1;151(4):403-415
pubmed: 30534975
Chest. 2018 Oct;154(4):827-837
pubmed: 30059678
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Sep;10(9):1240-1242
pubmed: 26291007
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Aug 01;3(8):1051-1058
pubmed: 28278348
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019 Nov/Dec;27(10):699-714
pubmed: 31584451
Lung Cancer. 2020 Oct;148:55-61
pubmed: 32799091
Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Apr;126(4):264-274
pubmed: 29411536
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 4;8(52):90123-90131
pubmed: 29163815
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Nov-Dec;65(6):457-80
pubmed: 26375877