“Interchangeability” of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Emina Torlakovic*, Hyun J. Lim, Julien Adam, Penny Barnes, Gilbert Bigras, Anthony W.H. Chan, Carol C. Cheung, Jin Haeng Chung, Christian Couture, Pierre O. Fiset, Daichi Fujimoto, Gang Han, Fred R. Hirsch, Marius Ilie, Diana Ionescu, Chao Li, Enrico Munari, Katsuhiro Okuda, Marianne J. Ratcliffe, David L. RimmCatherine Ross, Rasmus Røge, Andreas H. Scheel, Ross A. Soo, Paul E. Swanson, Maria Tretiakova, Ka F. To, Gilad W. Vainer, Hangjun Wang, Zhaolin Xu, Dirk Zielinski, Ming Sound Tsao

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

149 Scopus citations

Abstract

Different clones, protocol conditions, instruments, and scoring/readout methods may pose challenges in introducing different PD-L1 assays for immunotherapy. The diagnostic accuracy of using different PD-L1 assays interchangeably for various purposes is unknown. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to address PD-L1 assay interchangeability based on assay diagnostic accuracy for established clinical uses/purposes. A systematic search of the MEDLINE database using PubMed platform was conducted using “PD-L1” as a search term for 01/01/2015 to 31/08/2018, with limitations “English” and “human”. 2,515 abstracts were reviewed to select for original contributions only. 57 studies on comparison of two or more PD-L1 assays were fully reviewed. 22 publications were selected for meta-analysis. Additional data were requested from authors of 20/22 studies in order to enable the meta-analysis. Modified GRADE and QUADAS-2 criteria were used for grading published evidence and designing data abstraction templates for extraction by reviewers. PRISMA was used to guide reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis and STARD 2015 for reporting diagnostic accuracy study. CLSI EP12-A2 was used to guide test comparisons. Data were pooled using random-effects model. The main outcome measure was diagnostic accuracy of various PD-L1 assays. The 22 included studies provided 376 2×2 contingency tables for analyses. Results of our study suggest that, when the testing laboratory is not able to use an Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic(s) for PD-L1 assessment for its specific clinical purpose(s), it is better to develop a properly validated laboratory developed test for the same purpose(s) as the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic, than to replace the original PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved immunohistochemistry companion diagnostic with a another PD-L1 Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic that was developed for a different purpose.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4-17
Number of pages14
JournalModern Pathology
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2020
Externally publishedYes

Funding

FundersFunder number
Canadian Association of Pathologists - canadienne des pathologistes
Merck Canada
National Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUL1TR001863
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada
AstraZeneca Canada
Canadian Association of Pathologists

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of '“Interchangeability” of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this