Cargando…
Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity
Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunostaining, which aids clinicians in decision-making on immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, is sometimes performed on cytological specimens. In this study, differences in cytology fixation and cell block (CB) processing between patholo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067664/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36370167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w |
_version_ | 1785018523524792320 |
---|---|
author | Koomen, Bregje M. de Boer, Mirthe van Dooijeweert, Carmen van Lindert, Anne S. R. Deckers, Ivette A. G. Voorham, Quirinus J. M. Willems, Stefan M. |
author_facet | Koomen, Bregje M. de Boer, Mirthe van Dooijeweert, Carmen van Lindert, Anne S. R. Deckers, Ivette A. G. Voorham, Quirinus J. M. Willems, Stefan M. |
author_sort | Koomen, Bregje M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunostaining, which aids clinicians in decision-making on immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, is sometimes performed on cytological specimens. In this study, differences in cytology fixation and cell block (CB) processing between pathology laboratories were assessed, and the influence of these differences on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was investigated. Questionnaires on cytology processing were sent to all Dutch laboratories. Information gathered from the responses was added to data on all Dutch NSCLC patients with a mention of PD-L1 testing in their cytopathology report from July 2017 to December 2018, retrieved from PALGA (the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands). Case mix-adjusted PD-L1 positivity rates were determined for laboratories with known fixation and CB method. The influence of differences in cytology processing on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed by comparing positivity rates adjusted for differences in the variables fixative and CB method with positivity rates not adjusted for differences in these variables. Twenty-eight laboratories responded to the survey and reported 19 different combinations of fixation and CB method. Interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed in 19 laboratories. Correcting for differences in the fixative and CB method resulted in a reduction (from eight (42.1%) to five (26.3%)) in the number of laboratories that differed significantly from the mean in PD-L1 positivity. Substantial variation in cytology fixation and CB processing methods was observed between Dutch pathology laboratories, which partially explains the existing considerable interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10067664 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100676642023-04-04 Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity Koomen, Bregje M. de Boer, Mirthe van Dooijeweert, Carmen van Lindert, Anne S. R. Deckers, Ivette A. G. Voorham, Quirinus J. M. Willems, Stefan M. Virchows Arch Original Article Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunostaining, which aids clinicians in decision-making on immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, is sometimes performed on cytological specimens. In this study, differences in cytology fixation and cell block (CB) processing between pathology laboratories were assessed, and the influence of these differences on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was investigated. Questionnaires on cytology processing were sent to all Dutch laboratories. Information gathered from the responses was added to data on all Dutch NSCLC patients with a mention of PD-L1 testing in their cytopathology report from July 2017 to December 2018, retrieved from PALGA (the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands). Case mix-adjusted PD-L1 positivity rates were determined for laboratories with known fixation and CB method. The influence of differences in cytology processing on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed by comparing positivity rates adjusted for differences in the variables fixative and CB method with positivity rates not adjusted for differences in these variables. Twenty-eight laboratories responded to the survey and reported 19 different combinations of fixation and CB method. Interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed in 19 laboratories. Correcting for differences in the fixative and CB method resulted in a reduction (from eight (42.1%) to five (26.3%)) in the number of laboratories that differed significantly from the mean in PD-L1 positivity. Substantial variation in cytology fixation and CB processing methods was observed between Dutch pathology laboratories, which partially explains the existing considerable interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-11-12 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10067664/ /pubmed/36370167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Koomen, Bregje M. de Boer, Mirthe van Dooijeweert, Carmen van Lindert, Anne S. R. Deckers, Ivette A. G. Voorham, Quirinus J. M. Willems, Stefan M. Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title | Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title_full | Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title_fullStr | Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title_full_unstemmed | Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title_short | Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity |
title_sort | nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in pd-l1 positivity |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10067664/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36370167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koomenbregjem nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT deboermirthe nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT vandooijeweertcarmen nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT vanlindertannesr nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT deckersivetteag nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT voorhamquirinusjm nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity AT willemsstefanm nationwidedifferencesincytologyfixationandprocessingmethodsandtheirimpactoninterlaboratoryvariationinpdl1positivity |