Comparison of SP263 and 22C3 immunohistochemistry PD-L1 assays for clinical efficacy of adjuvant atezolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: results from the randomized phase III IMpower010 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor samples from the phase III IMpower010 study were used to compare two programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry assays (VENTANA SP263 and Dako 22C3) for identification of PD-L1 patient subgroups (negative, positive, low, and high expression) and their predictive value for adjuvant atezolizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC) in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: PD-L1 expression was assessed by the SP263 assay, which measured the percentage of tumor cells with any membranous PD-L1 staining, and the 22C3 assay, which scored the percentage of viable tumor cells showing partial or complete membranous PD-L1 staining. RESULTS: When examining the concordance at the PD-L1-positive threshold (SP263: tumor cell (TC)≥1%; 22C3: tumor proportion score (TPS)≥1%), the results were concordant between assays for 83% of the samples. Similarly, at the PD-L1-high cut-off (SP263: TC≥50%; 22C3: TPS≥50%), the results were concordant between assays for 92% of samples. The disease-free survival benefit of atezolizumab over BSC was comparable between assays for PD-L1-positive (TC≥1% by SP263: HR, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.85) vs TPS≥1% by 22C3: HR, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.95)) and PD-L1-high (TC≥50% by SP263: HR, 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.53) vs TPS≥50% by 22C3: HR, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.60)) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SP263 and 22C3 assays showed high concordance and a comparable clinical predictive value of atezolizumab at validated PD-L1 thresholds, suggesting that both assays can identify patients with early-stage NSCLC most likely to experience benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02486718.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".