ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Center2024
Concordance between four PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays and 22C3 pharmDx assay in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a multicenter study.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- High PD-L1 expression as a negative prognostic factor in stage III but not in stage II gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy versus chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Optimizing neoadjuvant treatment in HER2-positive breast cancer: the role of HER2, HR, PD-L1 expression and regimen selection.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prediction of response to immunotherapy mostly depends on the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) status, and the 22C3 pharmDx assay has been approved in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the widespread use of the 22C3 pharmDx assay is limited due to its availability. Thus, alternative PD-L1 assays are needed. We aimed to investigate the analytical and clinical diagnostic performances of four PD-L1 assays and to compare their concordances with the 22C3 pharmDx assay. Methods: The PD-L1 22C3 pharmDx assay was performed on the Dako Autostainer Link 48 platform, three testing assays (PD-L1 E1L3N XP antibody [Ab], PD-L1 BP6099 Ab and PD-L1 CST E1L3N Ab) on the Leica BOND-MAX/III platform, and one testing assay (PD-L1 MXR006 Ab) on the Roche VENTANA Benchmark Ultra platform. A total of 218 ESCC cases from four centers were included in this retrospective study. Professionals from each center stained and read the IHC slides independently and determined the combined positive score (CPS) and the tumor proportion score (TPS). Results: Regarding analytical performance, the four testing assays demonstrated good correlations with the 22C3 pharmDx assay when evaluated by the TPS or CPS (ρ > 0.8 for all four assays). Regarding diagnostic performance (CPS ≥ 10 was used as the cutoff), the four testing assays showed moderate concordances with the 22C3 pharmDx assay (kappa > 0.7 for all four assays). The overall percent agreements between each testing assay and the 22C3 pharmDx assay was at least 87.2 %. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the potential interchangeability of the four PD-L1 assays with the 22C3 pharmDx assay.
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.