Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Discovery Life Sciences, Hesse, Germany.
Mod Pathol. 2023 May;36(5):100154. doi: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100154. Epub 2023 Mar 15.
Reliable, reproducible methods to interpret programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells (TC) and immune cells (IC) are needed for pathologists to inform decisions associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapies. Our international study compared interpathologist agreement of PD-L1 expression using the combined positive score (CPS) under standardized conditions on samples from patients with gastric/gastroesophageal junction/esophageal adenocarcinoma. Tissue sections from 100 adenocarcinoma pretreatment biopsies were stained in a single laboratory using the PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 28-8 and 22C3 (Agilent) pharmDx immunohistochemical assays. PD-L1 CPS was evaluated by 12 pathologists on scanned whole slide images of these biopsies before and after a 2-hour CPS training session by Agilent. Additionally, pathologists determined PD-L1-positive TC, IC, and total viable TC on a single tissue fragment from 35 of 100 biopsy samples. Scoring agreement among pathologists was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Interobserver variability for CPS for 100 biopsies was high, with only fair agreement among pathologists both pre- (range, 0.45-0.55) and posttraining (range, 0.56-0.57) for both assays. For the 35 single biopsy samples, poor/fair agreement was also observed for the total number of viable TC (ICC, 0.09), number of PD-L1-positive IC (ICC, 0.19), number of PD-L1-positive TC (ICC, 0.54), and calculated CPS (ICC, 0.14), whereas calculated TC score (positive TC/total TC) showed excellent agreement (ICC, 0.82). Retrospective histologic review of samples with the poorest interpathologist agreement revealed the following as possible confounding factors: (1) ambiguous identification of positively staining stromal cells, (2) faint or variable intensity of staining, (3) difficulty in distinguishing membranous from cytoplasmic tumor staining, and (4) cautery and crush artifacts. These results emphasize the need for objective techniques to standardize the interpretation of PD-L1 expression when using the CPS methodology on gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer biopsies to accurately identify patients most likely to benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
需要可靠且可重现的方法来解读肿瘤细胞 (TC) 和免疫细胞 (IC) 上程序性死亡配体 1 (PD-L1) 的表达,以便病理学家能够根据免疫检查点抑制剂治疗做出相关决策。本国际研究比较了在标准化条件下,使用组合阳性评分 (CPS) 对胃/胃食管交界处/食管腺癌患者样本进行 PD-L1 表达的病理学家间一致性。使用 PD-L1 免疫组化 28-8 和 22C3(Agilent)pharmDx 免疫组化检测试剂盒,对 100 例腺癌预处理活检的组织切片在一个实验室中进行染色。在由 Agilent 提供的 2 小时 CPS 培训课程之前和之后,12 名病理学家对这些活检的扫描全玻片图像进行 PD-L1 CPS 评估。此外,病理学家在 100 个活检样本中的 35 个样本的单个组织片段上确定 PD-L1 阳性 TC、IC 和总存活 TC。使用组内相关系数 (ICC) 评估病理学家之间的评分一致性。对于 100 个活检,CPS 的观察者间变异性很高,两种检测方法在培训前 (范围,0.45-0.55) 和培训后 (范围,0.56-0.57) 病理学家之间的一致性均为一般。对于 35 个单个活检样本,总存活 TC 的数量 (ICC,0.09)、PD-L1 阳性 IC 的数量 (ICC,0.19)、PD-L1 阳性 TC 的数量 (ICC,0.54) 和计算的 CPS (ICC,0.14) 也观察到较差/一般的一致性,而计算的 TC 评分 (阳性 TC/总 TC) 显示出极好的一致性 (ICC,0.82)。对观察者间一致性最差的样本进行回顾性组织学检查后发现,可能存在以下混淆因素:(1) 阳性染色基质细胞的鉴定存在歧义,(2) 染色强度微弱或多变,(3) 区分膜性和细胞质肿瘤染色困难,以及 (4) 电烙和压碎伪影。这些结果强调了需要客观技术来标准化 PD-L1 表达的解读,当使用 CPS 方法对胃/胃食管交界处癌症活检进行检测时,以准确识别最有可能从免疫检查点抑制剂治疗中获益的患者。