Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34232604›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of surgical pathology2021

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.

Jia-Min B Pang, Belinda Castles, David J Byrne, Peter Button, Shona Hendry, Sunil R Lakhani, Vanathi Sivasubramaniam, Wendy A Cooper, Jane Armes, Ewan K A Millar and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of surgical pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 13 institutions in 5 countries.

Jia-Min B PangPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
Belinda CastlesRoche Products Pty. Ltd (Australia).
David J ByrnePeter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
Peter ButtonOzBiostats Pty. Ltd.
Shona HendryPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
Sunil R LakhaniUniversity of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research.
Vanathi SivasubramaniamSydPath, St Vincent's Hospital.
Wendy A CooperSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney.
Jane ArmesPathology Queensland, Sunshine Coast, QLD.
Ewan K A MillarNSW Health Pathology, St George Hospital.
Wendy RaymondFlinders Medical Centre, Flinders University of South Australia.
Samuel Roberts-ThomsonRoyal Melbourne Hospital.
Beena KumarMonash Pathology, Monash Health.
Marian BurrRoyal Melbourne Hospital.
Christina SelingerRoyal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Surry Hills.
Kate HarveyThe Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst.
Charles ChanConcord Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney.
Jane BeithSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney.
David CloustonTissuPath.
Sandra A O'TooleSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney.
Stephen B FoxPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
kConFab
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUGarvan Institute of Medical Research · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUAgrobioinstitute · BGMonash Health · AUQueensland Health · AURoyal College of Pathologists of Australasia · AUSouth Australia Pathology · AUSt Vincent's Hospital · AUSutherland Hospital · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUTissuPath · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

Cancer Research UK 20097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SP142 programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status predicts response to atezolizumab in triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC). Prevalence of VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay positivity, concordance with the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay and Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay, and association with clinicopathologic features were assessed in 447 TNBCs. SP142 PD-L1 intraobserver and interobserver agreement was investigated in a subset of 60 TNBCs, with scores enriched around the 1% cutoff. The effect of a 1-hour training video on pretraining and posttraining scores was ascertained. At a 1% cutoff, 34.2% of tumors were SP142 PD-L1 positive. SP142 PD-L1 positivity was significantly associated with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (P <0.01), and node negativity (P=0.02), but not with tumor grade (P=0.35), tumor size (P=0.58), or BRCA mutation (P=0.53). Overall percentage agreement (OPA) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement was 95.0% and 93.7%, respectively, among 5 pathologists trained in TNBC SP142 PD-L1 scoring. In 5 TNBC SP142 PD-L1-naive pathologists, significantly higher OPA to the reference score was achieved after video training (posttraining OPA 85.7%, pretraining OPA 81.5%, P<0.05). PD-L1 status at a 1% cutoff was assessed by SP142 and SP263 in 420 cases, and by SP142 and 22C3 in 423 cases, with OPA of 88.1% and 85.8%, respectively. The VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) Assay is reproducible for classifying TNBC PD-L1 status by trained observers; however, it is not analytically equivalent to the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay and Dako PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay.

Indexed as

Triple Negative Breast NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, MonoclonalB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMiddle AgedObserver VariationAntibodies, MonoclonalB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorCD274 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID34232604
PMCPMC8277187
OpenAlexW3138068317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.