Abstract 570: PD-L1 expression in paired non-small cell lung cancer tumor samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is limited information on changes over time in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods PD-L1 expression was assessed in paired tumor samples collected at different time points from the same patient using a prototype immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay with the 22C3 antibody. PD-L1 strong and weak positivity were defined to be traceable to the 1% and 50% cutoffs used in the clinical trial version of the assay. Concordance of PD-L1 expression between samples was analyzed by treating the IHC proportional score as a continuous and categorical variable. Results 90 patients were included (73 from Korea, 17 from Denmark). 75% were male, 37% had squamous cell carcinoma, and 83% had stage I-IIIA disease. 97% of first samples and 53% of second samples were from lung. 89% and 63%, respectively, were surgical samples, with a median interval of 20.9 months (range, 0.1-94.0) between collection dates; 91% of paired samples were collected >3 months apart. A significant correlation of the PD-L1 IHC proportional score was observed for the paired samples (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.62; P < 0.001). At the second time point, scores were identical in 39% of paired samples, higher in 32%, and lower in 29%. Of note, 12% of PD-L1-negative cases became positive and 20% of PD-L1-positive cases become negative at the second time point. The concordance rate was 56% (95% CI, 46%-67%) when PD-L1 expression was categorized as strong or weak positive or negative (Table). Conclusion Although a significant correlation of the PD-L1 IHC proportional score was observed, this preliminary analysis suggested a discordance rate of 44% between initial and subsequent NSCLC tumor samples when patients were categorized by PD-L1 expression level. Similar results were observed when analyzing paired melanoma samples. This discordance should be considered if PD-L1 expression is used for selection of enrollment in clinical trials. Table. Concordance of PD-L1 Expression in Paired NSCLC Samples (N = 90) Later Time PointPD-L1 ExpressionStrong positive, n (%)Weak positive, n (%)Negative, n (%)Earlier Time PointStrong positive3 (3)3 (3)1 (1)Weak positive7 (8)20 (22)17 (19)Negative011 (12)28 (31) Citation Format: Jhingook Kim, Steffen Filskov Sorensen, Yoon-La Choi, Zhen (Adelle) Wang, Jong-Mu Sun, Hyejoo Choi, Jeanette Baehr Georgsen, Marisa Dolled-Filhart, Kenneth Emancipator, Dianna Y. Wu, Peter Meldgaard, Wei Zhou, Henrik Hager. PD-L1 expression in paired non-small cell lung cancer tumor samples. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 570. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-570
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".