Accuracy of Cytologic vs Histologic Specimens for Assessment of Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 Expression in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells, evaluated by immunohistochemistry, guides the use of immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed in cytologic vs paired histologic specimens in patients with NSCLC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through June 1, 2021. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed on cytologic specimens compared with the reference standard of histologic specimens, analyzed at the PD-L1 expression cutoffs (tumor proportion score) ≥ 1% and ≥ 50%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, and associated 95% CIs, were estimated using bivariate generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included, encompassing a total of 1,064 pairs of histology specimens and cytology cell blocks, and 267 pairs of histology specimens and direct smears. Among these, 946 paired specimens were acquired without interval treatment between the collection of histology and cytology samples. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens compared with paired histology specimens at the PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. When only paired specimens acquired without interval treatment were considered, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens at PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Cytologic specimens provide an accurate assessment of PD-L1 expression in most patients with NSCLC, at both ≥ 1% and ≥ 50% cutoffs, when compared with histologic specimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020153279; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
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 | 0.070 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".