ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2019
Quantitative immunohistochemical assay with novel digital immunostaining for comparisons of PD-L1 antibodies.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel quantitative immunohistochemical analysis for evaluating PD-L1 expression with phosphor-integrated dots for predicting the efficacy of patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Improvement of the anticancer efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade via combination therapy and PD-L1 regulation.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One obstacle in diagnostic pathology is the harmonization of one drug-one diagnostic tests for programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1). There are many challenges in accurate comparisons of diagnostic tests, such as differences in the titer of each antibody, detection system and dynamic range of visualization. Our previously developed digital immunostaining technique is highly sensitive and quantitative with the ability to quantify particles that bind in a one-to-one fashion with antibody in each cell. Determining the differences in the titer of each antibody with digital immunostaining may be beneficial for future harmonized analysis. To demonstrate the accuracy of digital immunostaining, the present study compared the number of particles with ELISA and nCounter data from five cell lines. NCI-H460 exhib-ited the highest level of PD-L1 protein, followed by A549, PC-3, NCI-H1299, and NCI-H446 cells. In addition, the PD-L1 mRNA values determined by nCounter corresponded with the order of the protein levels determined by ELISA. The present study revealed that digital immunostaining for PD-L1 was highly associated with ELISA and nCounter data. Among the four antibodies tested, the titer of all but SP142 coincided with ELISA and nCounter data. These results indicated that our digital immunostaining technique may be beneficial for future harmonized analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.