ArticleCancers2023
Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement of PD-L1 SP142 Scoring in Breast Carcinoma-A Large Multi-Institutional International Study.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Observational
- Establishment and verification of a prognostic immune cell signature-based model for breast cancer overall survival.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Divergent Cellular Expression Patterns of PD-L1 and PD-L2 Proteins in Breast Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Triple-negative breast cancer: from none to multiple therapeutic targets in two decades.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The assessment of PD-L1 expression in TNBC is a prerequisite for selecting patients for immunotherapy. The accurate assessment of PD-L1 is pivotal, but the data suggest poor reproducibility. A total of 100 core biopsies were stained using the VENTANA Roche SP142 assay, scanned and scored by 12 pathologists. Absolute agreement, consensus scoring, Cohen's Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were assessed. A second scoring round after a washout period to assess intra-observer agreement was carried out. Absolute agreement occurred in 52% and 60% of cases in the first and second round, respectively. Overall agreement was substantial (Kappa 0.654-0.655) and higher for expert pathologists, particularly on scoring TNBC (6.00 vs. 0.568 in the second round). The intra-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect (Kappa: 0.667-0.956), regardless of PD-L1 scoring experience. The expert scorers were more concordant in evaluating staining percentage compared with the non-experienced scorers (R
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.