Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

“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. Rimm
  • Catherine 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

160 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

    UN SDGs

    This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

    1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
      SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

    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