ArticleJournal of breast cancer2020
Concordance of Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression between SP142 and 22C3/SP263 Assays in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.
Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Assay Comparison in Atezolizumab Plus nab-Paclitaxel-Treated Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Trial
- Observational
- Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression across Multiple Assays in Ovarian Cancer: A Comparative Analysis.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Concordance of programmed death-ligand 1 expression assessments determinedWorld journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Expression of PD-L1 in breast invasive lobular carcinoma.PloS one · 2024Article
- Discordance in PD-L1 expression using 22C3 and SP142 assays between primary and metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2023Article
- Comparison of SP142 and 22C3 PD-L1 assays in a population-based cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients in the context of their clinically established scoring algorithms.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2023Article
- Immune Biomarkers in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Improving the Predictivity of Current Testing Methods.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- PD-L1 testing by immunohistochemistry in immuno-oncology.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2023Review
- The PD-L1 Expression Among Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients in Universitas Sumatera Utara Teaching Hospital, Indonesia.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2022Article
- Rationale and Clinical Research Progress on PD-1/PD-L1-Based Immunotherapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Fatty acid synthetase expression in triple-negative breast cancer.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2022Article
- Soluble PD-L1 works as a decoy in lung cancer immunotherapy via alternative polyadenylation.JCI insight · 2022Article
- De-glycosylated membrane PD-L1 in tumor tissues as a biomarker for responsiveness to atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in advanced breast cancer patients.American journal of cancer research · 2022Article
- Predictive Biomarkers of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Response in Breast Cancer: Looking beyond Tumoral PD-L1.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Characteristics and Spatially Defined Immune (micro)landscapes of Early-stage PD-L1-positive Triple-negative Breast Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- PD-L1 expression evaluated by 22C3 antibody is a better prognostic marker than SP142/SP263 antibodies in breast cancer patients after resection.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- SP142 PD-L1 Scoring Shows High Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement in Triple-negative Breast Carcinoma But Overall Low Percentage Agreement With Other PD-L1 Clones SP263 and 22C3.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2021Article
- Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a major clinical challenge due to its aggressive and metastatic behavior and the lack of available targeted therapies. Therefore, therapeutic strategies are needed to improve TNBC patient management. Recently, atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic TNBC. The programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemical SP142 assay was also approved as a companion diagnostic device for selecting TNBC patients for atezolizumab treatment. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the analytical performance of the PD-L1 22C3/SP263 assays in comparison with the SP142 assay for ≥ 1% immune cells (ICs).
methodsImmunohistochemical expression for the PD-L1 22C3/SP263 assays, in comparison with the SP142 assay, was analyzed for the ≥ 1% ICs in 95 TNBCs.
resultsAt the 1% cut-off value, the proportions of positive cases were 52.6% for the SP142 assay in infiltrating ICs and 50.5% and 52.6% for the 22C3 and SP263 assays in tumor cells, respectively. The PD-L1 SP263 assay had the highest while the PD-L1 22C3 assay had the lowest total positive expression rate at all cut-off values. The concordance rate between the assays was highest at a 1% cut-off value and decreased when the cut-off value increased. The concordance rate between the SP142 and SP263 assays at 1% cut-off was high, while in comparison, the concordance rate between the SP142 and 22C3 assays at 1% cut-off was relatively lower.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that although the 22C3 assay at a 1% cut-off value compared with the PD-L1 SP142 assay at the clinically relevant cut-off shows comparable but not interchangeable analytical performance, the analytical performance of the SP263 assay at a 1% cut-off value shows interchangeable performance with the PD-L1 SP142 assay at the clinically relevant cut-off.
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.