Suppr超能文献

四种 PD-L1 免疫组化检测方法在肺癌中的比较。

Comparison of Four PD-L1 Immunohistochemical Assays in Lung Cancer.

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.

Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Mar;13(3):367-376. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2017.11.112. Epub 2017 Nov 23.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Four different programmed death ligand 1 immunohistochemical assays are approved or in development as companion or complementary diagnostics to different immunotherapeutic agents in lung carcinoma. We sought to determine whether these assays are technically equivalent and whether one antibody can be used on an alternate staining platform.

METHODS

Serial sections of tissue microarrays constructed from 368 cases of resected lung cancer were stained for 22C3 and 28-8 on the Dako Link 48 platform (Dako, Carpinteria, Ca) and for SP142 and SP263 on the Ventana Benchmark Ultra platform (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ) strictly as per product insert. A protocol was developed to use the 22C3 antibody on the Ventana Benchmark Ultra platform.

RESULTS

Differences in mean tumor cell and immune cell staining were observed between the four assays (p < 0.001). Differences between 22C3 and 28-8 were not statistically significant. Concordance of tumor cell scores was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.674), particularly when SP142 was excluded as an outlier (ICC = 0.755). The highest concordance was seen between 22C3 and 28-8 (ICC = 0.812). Concordance was poor for immune cell staining (ICC = 0.212). When dichotomized according to clinically relevant cutoffs, pairwise comparisons showed poor to moderate concordance (κ = 0.196-0.578), with positive percent agreement ranging from 15.1% to 90.0%. The 22C3 antibody performed comparably on the Dako Link 48 platform and the alternate Ventana Benchmark Ultra platform (ICC = 0.921, κ = 0.897).

CONCLUSIONS

Concordance between the four programmed death ligand 1 immunohistochemical assays when performed and scored as intended show that apart from 28-8 and 22C3, they cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice. A protocol was successfully developed to use 22C3 on an alternate platform, which may help to overcome some barriers to implementation.

摘要

简介

四种不同的程序性死亡配体 1 免疫组化检测法被批准或正在开发中,作为不同免疫治疗药物在肺癌中的伴随或互补诊断方法。我们试图确定这些检测方法在技术上是否等效,以及一种抗体是否可以在替代染色平台上使用。

方法

使用从 368 例肺癌切除标本构建的组织微阵列的连续切片,在 Dako Link 48 平台上(Dako,Carpinteria,CA)为 22C3 和 28-8 染色,在 Ventana Benchmark Ultra 平台上(Ventana Medical Systems,Tucson,AZ)严格按照产品说明书为 SP142 和 SP263 染色。开发了一种使用 22C3 抗体在 Ventana Benchmark Ultra 平台上的方案。

结果

四种检测方法之间观察到肿瘤细胞和免疫细胞染色的平均差异(p < 0.001)。22C3 和 28-8 之间的差异没有统计学意义。肿瘤细胞评分的一致性较好(组内相关系数[ICC] = 0.674),尤其是当排除 SP142 作为异常值时(ICC = 0.755)。22C3 和 28-8 之间的一致性最高(ICC = 0.812)。免疫细胞染色的一致性较差(ICC = 0.212)。根据临床相关截断值进行二分类时,两两比较显示一致性差到中度(κ = 0.196-0.578),阳性百分比一致性从 15.1%到 90.0%不等。22C3 抗体在 Dako Link 48 平台和替代 Ventana Benchmark Ultra 平台上的表现相当(ICC = 0.921,κ = 0.897)。

结论

按照预期进行和评分的四种程序性死亡配体 1 免疫组化检测方法之间的一致性表明,除了 28-8 和 22C3 之外,它们不能在临床实践中互换使用。成功开发了一种在替代平台上使用 22C3 的方案,这可能有助于克服实施中的一些障碍。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验