Suppr超能文献

提高英国非小细胞肺癌 PD-L1 检测实践水平:当前问题与潜在解决方案。

Improving practice in PD-L1 testing of non-small cell lung cancer in the UK: current problems and potential solutions.

机构信息

Cellular Pathology, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.

Center for Cancer Outcomes, North Central and North East London Cancer Alliances, UCLH, London, UK.

出版信息

J Clin Pathol. 2024 Jan 18;77(2):135-139. doi: 10.1136/jcp-2022-208643.

Abstract

AIMS

Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, used universally to predict response of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to immune-modulating drugs, is a fragile biomarker due to biological heterogeneity and challenges in interpretation. The aim of this study was to assess current PD-L1 testing practices in the UK, which may help to define strategies to improve its reliability and consistency.

METHODS

A questionnaire covering NSCLC PD-L1 testing practice was devised and members of the Association of Pulmonary Pathologists were invited to complete this online.

RESULTS

Of 44 pathologists identified as involved in PD-L1 testing, 32 (73%) responded. There was good consistency in practice and approach, but there was wide variability in the distribution of PD-L1 scoring. Although the proportions of scores falling into the three groups (negative, low and high) defined by the 1% and 50% 'cut-offs' (38%, 33% and 27%, respectively) reflect the general experience, the range within each group was wide at 23-70%, 10-60% and 15-36%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistency in the crucial endpoint of PD-L1 testing of NSCLC, the expression score that guides management. Addressing this requires formal networking of individuals and laboratories to devise a strategy for its reduction.

摘要

目的

程序性死亡配体 1(PD-L1)表达被广泛用于预测非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)对免疫调节药物的反应,但由于生物学异质性和解释上的挑战,它是一种脆弱的生物标志物。本研究旨在评估英国目前的 PD-L1 检测实践,这可能有助于确定提高其可靠性和一致性的策略。

方法

设计了一份涵盖 NSCLC PD-L1 检测实践的问卷,并邀请肺病理学家协会的成员在线完成。

结果

在确定的 44 名参与 PD-L1 检测的病理学家中,有 32 名(73%)做出了回应。实践和方法上存在很好的一致性,但 PD-L1 评分的分布存在很大的差异。虽然落入三个组(阴性、低和高)的比例反映了一般经验,分别为 38%、33%和 27%,但每个组内的范围很广,分别为 23-70%、10-60%和 15-36%。

结论

在指导管理的 NSCLC PD-L1 检测的关键终点即表达评分上存在不一致性。解决这一问题需要个人和实验室正式建立网络,制定减少这种不一致性的策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a7c5/10850646/cde1e0a4408a/jcp-2022-208643f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验