PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Assay Concordance in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder and Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry is used to guide treatment decisions regarding the use of checkpoint immunotherapy in the management of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and hypopharyngeal (HP) squamous cell carcinoma. With increasing PD-L1 testing options, a need has arisen to assess the analytical comparability of diagnostic assays in order to develop a more sustainable testing strategy. Using tissue microarrays, PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (TCs) and immune cells (ICs) was manually scored in 197 cases and 27 cases of bladder and HP cancer, respectively. Three commercial kits (Ventana SP263, Ventana SP142, Dako 22C3) and 1 platform-independent test (Cell Signalling Technologies E1L3N) were utilized. Across the 3 commercially available clones, 14% and 74% of urothelial carcinomas were positive and negative, respectively, whereas 7% and 78% of HP carcinomas were positive and negative, respectively. Twelve percent of bladder and 15% HP cases showed discrepant PD-L1 classification results. Regardless of the scoring algorithm used, E1L3N provided comparable PD-L1 staining results. Fleiss' kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analyses demonstrated substantial agreement among all antibody clones (k=0.639 to 0.791) and excellent reliability among SP263, 22C3, and E1L3N antibodies (ICC, 0.929 to 0.949) in TC staining. Compared with the other 3 clones, SP142 TC staining was lower with only moderate correlation (ICC, 0.500 to 0.619). Generally, the reliability of immune cell staining was lower compared with TC staining (ICC, 0.519 to 0.866). Our results demonstrate good analytic comparability of all 4 antibodies. The results are encouraging and support growing optimism in the pathology and oncology communities concerning strategies in PD-L1 assay use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".