Cancer Res Treat.  2020 Jul;52(3):661-670. 10.4143/crt.2019.718.

PD-L1 Testing in Gastric Cancer by the Combined Positive Score of the 22C3 PharmDx and SP263 Assay with Clinically Relevant Cut-offs

• Park Y
• Koh J
• Na HY
• Kwak Y
• Lee KW
• Ahn SH
• Park DJ
• Kim HH
• Lee HS

• KMID: 2504448
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2019.718

Abstract

Purpose
We provide a comparison between 22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assay, for evaluating programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in advanced gastric cancer (GC) patients.
Materials and Methods
The PD-L1 immunohistochemistry by 22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assays was performed in the center of the tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) in 379 GC tissues using tissue microarrays and interpreted as combined positive score (CPS) and tumor proportion score (TPS). Of the total samples, 55 samples were independently reviewed by five pathologists.
Results
The two assays showed a high correlation in both the CPS and TPS. At a CPS ≥ 1 cut-off, 219 (57.8%) and 231 (60.9%) GCs were positive for PD-L1 with the 22C3 and SP263 assays, and at ≥ 10 cut-off, 37 (9.8%) and 36 (9.5%) GCs were positive, respectively. The overall percent agreement (OPA) was greater than 90% with CPS ≥ 1 and ≥ 10 cut-offs, and TPS ≥ 1% and ≥ 10% cut-offs. There was higher OPA between the two assays with a CPS cut-off ≥ 10 (99.2%) than ≥ 1 (94.7%). The percent agreement between the CT and IM was higher with a CPS cut-off ≥ 10 (92.9%) than ≥ 1 (77.6%). Patient with positive expression at CPS ≥ 5 cut-off had a significantly better outcomes in both assays. Interobserver variability among five pathologists was higher than the assay variability.
Conclusion
Two assays for PD-L1 expression in GC showed high agreement. These results provide guidance for selecting eligible patients with GC for pembrolizumab treatment.

Keyword

Programmed cell death ligand 1; Immunohistochemistry; 22C3 pharmDx; SP263 assay; Gastric neoplasms

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Representative tumor microarray core stained with the 22C3 pharmDx and SP 263 assay according to the combined positive score (CPS) distribution (core magnification, ×50; inlet, ×200).

• 

  Fig. 2. Correlation between the 22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assay for the combined positive score (CPS) (A) and tumor proportion score (TPS) (B) at the center of the tumor and invasive margin in gastric cancer samples.

• 

  Fig. 3. Programmed death ligand 1 expression distribution of the 22C3 pharmDx and SP263 assay for the combined positive score (CPS) (A, B) and tumor proportion score (TPS) (C, D) at the center of the tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) by intervals.

Reference

References

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:E359–86.

2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Oh CM, Shin A, Lee JS. Survival of korean adult cancer patients by stage at diagnosis, 20062010: national cancer registry study. Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 45:162–71.

3. Sasako M, Sakuramoto S, Katai H, Kinoshita T, Furukawa H, Yamaguchi T, et al. Five-year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:4387–93.

4. Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, Chung HC, Shen L, Sawaki A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 376:687–97.

5. Sharma P, Allison JP. Immune checkpoint targeting in cancer therapy: toward combination strategies with curative potential. Cell. 2015; 161:205–14.

6. Ribas A. Tumor immunotherapy directed at PD-1. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:2517–9.

7. Gong J, Chehrazi-Raffle A, Reddi S, Salgia R. Development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors as a form of cancer immunotherapy: a comprehensive review of registration trials and future considerations. J Immunother Cancer. 2018; 6:8.

8. Fuchs CS, Doi T, Jang RW, Muro K, Satoh T, Machado M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 2 clinical KEYNOTE-059 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4:e180013.

9. Shitara K, Ozguroglu M, Bang YJ, Di Bartolomeo M, Mandala M, Ryu MH, et al. Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE-061): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018; 392:123–33.

10. Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D, Ranger-Moore J, Jansson M, Kulangara K, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of the Blueprint PD-L1 IHC Assay Comparison Project. J Thorac Oncol. 2017; 12:208–22.

11. Hodgson A, Slodkowska E, Jungbluth A, Liu SK, Vesprini D, Enepekides D, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay concordance in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder and hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42:1059–66.

12. Yun S, Koh J, Nam SK, Park JO, Lee SM, Lee K, et al. Clinical significance of overexpression of NRG1 and its receptors, HER3 and HER4, in gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer. 2018; 21:225–36.

13. Planchard D, Yokoi T, McCleod MJ, Fischer JR, Kim YC, Ballas M, et al. A phase III study of durvalumab (MEDI4736) with or without tremelimumab for previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC: rationale and protocol design of the ARCTIC study. Clin Lung Cancer. 2016; 17:232–6.

14. Chang MS, Lee JH, Kim JP, Kim HS, Lee HS, Kim CW, et al. Microsatellite instability and Epstein-Barr virus infection in gastric remnant cancers. Pathol Int. 2000; 50:486–92.

15. Lee HS, Kim WH, Kwak Y, Koh J, Bae JM, Kim KM, et al. Molecular testing for gastrointestinal cancer. J Pathol Transl Med. 2017; 51:103–21.

16. Statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests: guidance for industry and FDA staff [Internet]. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration;2019. [cited 2019 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidancedocuments/statistical-guidance-reporting-results-studiesevaluating-diagnostic-tests-guidance-industry-and-fda.

17. Fitzgibbons PL, Bradley LA, Fatheree LA, Alsabeh R, Fulton RS, Goldsmith JD, et al. Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138:1432–43.

18. Munari E, Zamboni G, Marconi M, Sommaggio M, Brunelli M, Martignoni G, et al. PD-L1 expression heterogeneity in nonsmall cell lung cancer: evaluation of small biopsies reliability. Oncotarget. 2017; 8:90123–31.

19. Brunnstrom H, Johansson A, Westbom-Fremer S, Backman M, Djureinovic D, Patthey A, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in clinical diagnostics of lung cancer: inter-pathologist variability is higher than assay variability. Mod Pathol. 2017; 30:1411–21.

20. Hansen AR, Siu LL. PD-L1 Testing in cancer: challenges in companion diagnostic development. JAMA Oncol. 2016; 2:15–6.

21. Buttner R, Gosney JR, Skov BG, Adam J, Motoi N, Bloom KJ, et al. Programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry testing: a review of analytical assays and clinical implementation in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35:3867–76.

22. Ratcliffe MJ, Sharpe A, Midha A, Barker C, Scott M, Scorer P, et al. Agreement between programmed cell death ligand-1 diagnostic assays across multiple protein expression cutoffs in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23:3585–91.

23. Chan AW, Tong JH, Kwan JS, Chow C, Chung LY, Chau SL, et al. Assessment of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression by 4 diagnostic assays and its clinicopathological correlation in a large cohort of surgical resected non-small cell lung carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2018; 31:1381–90.

24. Munari E, Rossi G, Zamboni G, Lunardi G, Marconi M, Sommaggio M, et al. PD-L1 assays 22C3 and SP263 are not interchangeable in non-small cell lung cancer when considering clinically relevant cutoffs: an interclone evaluation by differently trained pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018; 42:1384–9.

25. Scheel AH, Dietel M, Heukamp LC, Johrens K, Kirchner T, Reu S, et al. Harmonized PD-L1 immunohistochemistry for pulmonary squamous-cell and adenocarcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2016; 29:1165–72.

26. Kulangara K, Zhang N, Corigliano E, Guerrero L, Waldroup S, Jaiswal D, et al. Clinical utility of the combined positive score for programmed death ligand-1 expression and the approval of pembrolizumab for treatment of gastric cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019; 143:330–7.

27. Kitazono S, Fujiwara Y, Tsuta K, Utsumi H, Kanda S, Horinouchi H, et al. Reliability of small biopsy samples compared with resected specimens for the determination of programmed death-ligand 1 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2015; 16:385–90.

28. Choi YY, Kim H, Shin SJ, Kim HY, Lee J, Yang HK, et al. Microsatellite instability and programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression in stage II/III gastric cancer: post hoc analysis of the CLASSIC randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2019; 270:309–16.

29. Kawazoe A, Kuwata T, Kuboki Y, Shitara K, Nagatsuma AK, Aizawa M, et al. Clinicopathological features of programmed death ligand 1 expression with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte, mismatch repair, and Epstein-Barr virus status in a large cohort of gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer. 2017; 20:40715.