Cargando…

The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer

PURPOSE: Stratification of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) for anti-PD-L1 therapy is based on PD-L1 expression in tumor biopsies. This study sought to evaluate the risk of PD-L1 misclassification. METHODS: We conducted a high-resolution analysis on ten surgical specimens of TNBC....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ben Dori, Shani, Aizic, Asaf, Zubkov, Asia, Tsuriel, Shlomo, Sabo, Edmond, Hershkovitz, Dov
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9239943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35622241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06630-3
_version_ 1784737425860329472
author Ben Dori, Shani
Aizic, Asaf
Zubkov, Asia
Tsuriel, Shlomo
Sabo, Edmond
Hershkovitz, Dov
author_facet Ben Dori, Shani
Aizic, Asaf
Zubkov, Asia
Tsuriel, Shlomo
Sabo, Edmond
Hershkovitz, Dov
author_sort Ben Dori, Shani
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Stratification of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) for anti-PD-L1 therapy is based on PD-L1 expression in tumor biopsies. This study sought to evaluate the risk of PD-L1 misclassification. METHODS: We conducted a high-resolution analysis on ten surgical specimens of TNBC. First, we determined PD-L1 expression pattern distribution via manual segmentation and measurement of 6666 microscopic clusters of positive PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining. Then, based on these results, we generated a computer model to calculate the effect of the positive PD-L1 fraction, aggregate size, and distribution of PD-L1 positive cells on the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Our computer-based model showed that larger aggregates of PD-L1 positive cells and smaller biopsy size were associated with higher fraction of false results (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, our model showed a significant increase in error rate when the fraction of PD-L1 expression was close to the cut-off (error rate of 12.1%, 0.84%, and 0.65% for PD-L1 positivity of 0.5–1.5%, ≤ 0.5% ,and ≥ 1.5%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, false positive results were significantly higher than false negative results (0.51–22.62%, with an average of 6.31% versus 0.11–11.36% with an average of 1.58% for false positive and false negative results, respectively, P < 0.05). Furthermore, heterogeneous tumors with different aggregate sizes in the same tumor, were associated with increased rate of false results in comparison to homogenous tumors (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our model can be used to estimate the risk of PD-L1 misclassification in biopsies, with potential implications for treatment decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06630-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9239943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92399432022-06-30 The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer Ben Dori, Shani Aizic, Asaf Zubkov, Asia Tsuriel, Shlomo Sabo, Edmond Hershkovitz, Dov Breast Cancer Res Treat Clinical Trial PURPOSE: Stratification of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) for anti-PD-L1 therapy is based on PD-L1 expression in tumor biopsies. This study sought to evaluate the risk of PD-L1 misclassification. METHODS: We conducted a high-resolution analysis on ten surgical specimens of TNBC. First, we determined PD-L1 expression pattern distribution via manual segmentation and measurement of 6666 microscopic clusters of positive PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining. Then, based on these results, we generated a computer model to calculate the effect of the positive PD-L1 fraction, aggregate size, and distribution of PD-L1 positive cells on the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Our computer-based model showed that larger aggregates of PD-L1 positive cells and smaller biopsy size were associated with higher fraction of false results (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, our model showed a significant increase in error rate when the fraction of PD-L1 expression was close to the cut-off (error rate of 12.1%, 0.84%, and 0.65% for PD-L1 positivity of 0.5–1.5%, ≤ 0.5% ,and ≥ 1.5%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Interestingly, false positive results were significantly higher than false negative results (0.51–22.62%, with an average of 6.31% versus 0.11–11.36% with an average of 1.58% for false positive and false negative results, respectively, P < 0.05). Furthermore, heterogeneous tumors with different aggregate sizes in the same tumor, were associated with increased rate of false results in comparison to homogenous tumors (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our model can be used to estimate the risk of PD-L1 misclassification in biopsies, with potential implications for treatment decisions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06630-3. Springer US 2022-05-27 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9239943/ /pubmed/35622241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06630-3 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 Clinical Trial
Ben Dori, Shani
Aizic, Asaf
Zubkov, Asia
Tsuriel, Shlomo
Sabo, Edmond
Hershkovitz, Dov
The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title_full The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title_fullStr The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title_short The risk of PD-L1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
title_sort risk of pd-l1 expression misclassification in triple-negative breast cancer
topic Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9239943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35622241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06630-3
work_keys_str_mv AT bendorishani theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT aizicasaf theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT zubkovasia theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT tsurielshlomo theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT saboedmond theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT hershkovitzdov theriskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT bendorishani riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT aizicasaf riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT zubkovasia riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT tsurielshlomo riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT saboedmond riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer
AT hershkovitzdov riskofpdl1expressionmisclassificationintriplenegativebreastcancer