ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2023
[Consistency comparison of programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 in different immuno-histochemical staining methods].
Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the consistency of programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 (PD-L1, clone E1L3N, 22C3, SP263) in different immunohistochemical staining methods.
methodsThe first step was to select the optimal process: The PD-L1(clone E1L3N) antibody recommended process, self-built process ①, self-built process ② and self-built process ③ were used to perform immunohistochemical staining in 5 cases of tonsil tissue. The quality of all slides was scored by expert pathologists (0-6 points). The process with the highest score was selected. The second step was to compare the consistency between the optimal procedure and the two standard procedures. Thirty-two cases of lung non-small cell carcinoma diagnosed by pathology in Peking University First Hospital in the past two years were randomly selected. The 32 cases were stained in parallel with the SP263 and 22C3 standard procedures, and all stained slides were scored by specialized pathologists for tumor proportion score (TPS). The scoring results were grouped according to < 1%, ≥1% to < 10%, ≥10% to < 50%, and ≥50%. The consistency of PD-L1 detection antibody clone E1L3N and 22C3, E1L3N and SP263 staining results was analyzed.
resultsTonsil stained slides scores (0-6 points) were as follows: The recommended protocol was 5, 5, 5, 5 and 5. The self-built process ① was 5, 6, 6, 5 and 6. The self-built process ② was 4, 4, 4, 4 and 4.The self-built process ③ was 3, 3, 3, 3 and 3. The self-built process ① was the best with the highest score. The TPSs of 32 non small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) cases were as follows: Of self-built process ①, 6 cases were lower than 1%, 5 cases were from 1% to 10%, 10 cases were from 10% to 50%, and 11 cases were higher than 50%; of 22C3 standard procedure, 5 cases were lower than 1%, 3 cases were from 1% to 10%, 13 cases were from 10% to 50%, 11 cases were higher than 50%; of SP263 standard procedure, 7 cases were lower than 1%, 4 cases were from 1% to 10%, 11 cases were from 10% to 50%, 10 cases were higher than 50%. The results of the consistency test were as follows: The
conclusionThe immunostaining using PD-L1(E1L3N) with validated self-built staining protocol ① by Ventana Benchmark GX platform can obtain high quality of slides, and the TPSs based on these slides are in good agreement with 22C3 and SP263 standard procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37042147PMC10091256What 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.