ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2023
Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- High accuracy in detecting HER2-low status in FNA of primary and metastatic breast cancer.Cancer cytopathology · 2026Article
- Novel hypoxia-immune biomarkers predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with laryngo-hypopharyngeal cancer.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- [New WHO Reporting System for Lung Cytopathology].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Validation and Implementation of OptiView and EnVision FLEX Detection Systems for Immunocytochemical Staining Protocols of the Ten Most Commonly Used Diagnostic Markers in Routine Cytopathological Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Fixative Solution for Liquid-Based Cytology in Diagnostic Cytopathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.