Abstract
BackgroundIn the evaluation of PD-L1 expression to select patients for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment, uniform guidelines that account for different immunohistochemistry assays, different cell types and different cutoff values across tumor types are lacking. Data on how different scoring methods compare in breast cancer are scant.MethodsUsing FDA-approved 22C3 diagnostic immunohistochemistry assay, we retrospectively evaluated PD-L1 expression in 496 primary invasive breast tumors that were not exposed to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment and compared three scoring methods (TC: invasive tumor cells; IC: tumor-infiltrating immune cells; TCIC: a combination of tumor cells and immune cells) in expression frequency and association with clinicopathologic factors.ResultsIn the entire cohort, positive PD-L1 expression was observed in 20% of patients by TCIC, 16% by IC, and 10% by TC, with a concordance of 87% between the three methods. In the triple-negative breast cancer patients, positive PD-L1 expression was observed in 35% by TCIC, 31% by IC, and 16% by TC, with a concordance of 76%. Associations between PD-L1 and clinicopathologic factors were investigated according to receptor groups and whether the patients had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The three scoring methods showed differences in their associations with clinicopathologic factors in all subgroups studied. Positive PD-L1 expression by IC was significantly associated with worse overall survival in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and showed a trend for worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival in triple-negative patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Positive PD-L1 expression by TCIC and TC also showed trends for worse survival in different subgroups.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the three scoring methods with a 1% cutoff are different in their sensitivity for PD-L1 expression and their associations with clinicopathologic factors. Scoring by TCIC is the most sensitive way to identify PD-L1-positive breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. As a prognostic marker, our study suggests that PD-L1 is associated with worse clinical outcome, most often shown by the IC score; however, the other scores may also have clinical implications in some subgroups. Large clinical trials are needed to test the similarities and differences of these scoring methods for their predictive values in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.
Highlights
In the evaluation of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression to select patients for anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 treatment, uniform guidelines that account for different immunohistochemistry assays, different cell types and different cutoff values across tumor types are lacking
Our findings indicate that the three scoring methods with a 1% cutoff are different in their sensitivity for PD-L1 expression and their associations with clinicopathologic factors
Our study suggests that PD-L1 is associated with worse clinical outcome, most often shown by the immune cells (IC) score; the other scores may have clinical implications in some subgroups
Summary
In the evaluation of PD-L1 expression to select patients for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment, uniform guidelines that account for different immunohistochemistry assays, different cell types and different cutoff values across tumor types are lacking. The FDA has approved several diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays corresponding to these drugs to detect PD-L1 expression and inform the selection of patients for treatment [6,7,8,9,10,11]. When these different immune checkpoint inhibitors are used for the same tumor type, the corresponding IHC assays may be scored differently. The 28-8 Dako PharmDx IHC assay scores the expression in the urothelial tumor cells only, with ā„ 1% as the cutoff for positivity. The Ventana SP142 assay, in contrast, measures PD-L1 expression in the tumor-infiltrating immune cells only, with ā„ 5% staining considered positive
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.