• Citer

The daily practice reality of PD-L1 (CD274) evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective study.

par Verocq, Camille ;Decaestecker, Christine ;Rocq, Laureen ;De Clercq, Sarah ;Verrellen, Audrey ;Mekinda Ngono, Zita Lea ;Ocak, Sebahat;Compere, Christophe;Stanciu-Pop, Claudia;Salmon, Isabelle ;Remmelink, Myriam ;D'Haene, Nicky
Référence Oncology Letters, 19, 5, page (3400-3410)
Publication Publié, 2020-03

Article révisé par les pairs

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Contenu
• Statistiques

Résumé :

Treatment with pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed cell death-1 (PDCD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) requires prior immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of the expression of the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) (also known as CD274 molecule) which is a heterogeneous and complex marker. The present study aimed to investigate how pathological and technical factors (such as tumor location and sampling type, respectively) may affect the PD-L1 evaluation in patients with NSCLC in the daily practice of pathology laboratories. The current study was retrospective, and included 454 patients with NSCLC, for whom PD-L1 expression analysis by IHC was prospectively performed between November 2016 and January 2018. The association between PD-L1 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients was statistically investigated using either the χ2 and Fisher exact tests or the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on whether PD-L1 expression was assessed in three large categories (<1, 1-49, ≥50%) or in more precise percentages. Furthermore, the same statistical methodology was used to analyze the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression according to its sampling type (cytology, biopsy or surgical specimen) and its location (primary tumor, lymph node or distant metastasis). Intra- and inter-observer discrepancies were also studied using double-blind evaluation and concordance analyses based on the weighted κ coefficient. The results demonstrated a significant association between PD-L1 expression and sample location (P=0.005), histological type (P=0.026), total number of mutations (P=0.004) and KRAS proto-oncogene, GTPase mutations (P=0.024). In addition, sampling type did not influence PD-L1 expression. The inter- and intra-observer discrepancies were 15% and between 16 and 17.5%, respectively. The present study confirmed that evaluation of PD-L1 expression by IHC can be performed on all types of samples. In addition, the results from the current study highlighted the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression among the different types of sample location. In complex cases, a second evaluation of PD-L1 expression by IHC would be performed due to intra- and inter-observer discrepancies.