Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Unraveling the complexity of PD-L1 assays: a descriptive review of the methodology, scoring, and practical implications

  • Gilad W. Vainer
  • , Sunil S. Badve
  • , Pathmanathan Rajadurai
  • , Fernando A. Soares
  • , Giuseppe Viale
  • , Reinhard Büttner
  • , Shanthy Nuti
  • , Jonathan Juco
  • , Radha Krishnan
  • , Ming Sound Tsao*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Hadassah University Medical Centre
  • Emory University
  • Rede D’Or São Luiz
  • Instituto de Pesquisa e Ensino D’Or
  • IRCCS Istituto Europeo di Oncologia - Milano
  • University of Cologne
  • Merck
  • Princess Margaret Hospital

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: Over the years, immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axes have substantially improved clinical outcomes for patients with various types of cancer and stages. As a result, PD-L1 is the most recognized biomarker used to guide the selection of patients for treatment with anti–PD-(L)1 therapy. To date, there are 4 regulatory agency-approved and commercially available immunohistochemistry assays used to quantify PD-L1 tumor expression, with each assay approved for use with a specific PD-(L)1 inhibitor. In this descriptive review, we concisely summarize the methodology and scoring methods of each assay, as well as some of the challenges associated with real-world use of these assay systems. Results: Each assay system is optimized for specific therapies, with its own anti-PD-L1 antibody, protocol, scoring, and interpretation guidelines. Although the methodologies of the 4 PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay systems are similar, differences in their antibody clones, protocol conditions, instrumentation, and scoring methods limit assay interchangeability. The assays are also highly sensitive; slight deviations to the protocol can increase the risk of misclassifying the PD-(L)1 tumor status of patients. As a result, pathologists are faced with choosing which assay to perform with a limited tumor sample as well as with the challenges associated with the scoring methods and differences in regional regulatory approvals and infrastructure. Conclusion: While the 4 approved PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays provide clinical value, we offer pathologists suggestions to reduce the challenges associated with PD-L1 testing based on assay systems.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1581275
JournalFrontiers in Oncology
Volume15
DOIs
StatePublished - 2025
Externally publishedYes

Funding

FundersFunder number
AstraZeneca
Sanofi
German Ministry of Research and Sciences BMBF
Gilead
Roche
German Cancer Aid DKH
European Union UN
German Research Society DFG
Daiichi Sankyo
Merck Sharp and Dohme United Kingdom
Ventana Medical Systems
Boehringer Ingelheim
Eli Lilly
MSD Oncology
Pfizer
NCIR01 CA281932

    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

    Keywords

    • PD-L1 assays
    • PD-L1 expression
    • PD-L1 scoring method
    • immune checkpoint inhibitors
    • regulatory approval

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Unraveling the complexity of PD-L1 assays: a descriptive review of the methodology, scoring, and practical implications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this