ArticleiLIVER2022
A retrospective study of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in iLIVER, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Resistance in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Strategies for Reversal.Cancers · 2025Review
- S100A9 promotes resistance to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma by degrading PARP1 and activating the STAT3/PD-L1 pathway.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression plays an important role in selecting patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who will benefit from anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 monotherapy and directing those with lower levels to alternative treatments. Methods: In total, 156 hepatocellular carcinoma tumors were stained with three PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays (SP142, 28-8, and E1L3N). Two junior pathologists and one senior pathologist evaluated the pathological slides and recorded the percentages of tumor and immune cells stained at any intensity. Results: Analytical comparisons demonstrated that the anti-PD-L1 assay SP142 is a significantly stronger reagent that stains a higher percent of both tumor and immune cells, while 28-8 and E1L3N behave similarly to each other. The correlation coefficients of the three assays ranged from 0.77 to 0.92 for tumor cells and from 0.66 to 0.75 for immune cells. Next, 1% and 5% tumor cell staining cutoffs were designated using various combinations of assays and cutoffs. Across all three reagents, 14 samples showed concordance above the 5% threshold, eight showed concordance within the range of 1% to 5% interval, and 93 showed concordance below the 1% threshold. The remaining 41 samples showed a combination of discordant results across all three reagents. High PD-L1 expression in tumor and immune cells tended to not be recurrent. Conclusions: The anti-PD-L1 assays 28-8 and E1L3N were closely aligned with regard to staining tumor and immune cells, whereas SP142 showed higher percentages of staining for both cell types. All three assays indicated greater variability in immune cell staining than in tumor cells.
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.