Observational studyScientific reports2025
PD-L1 expression in gastric cancer assessed with antibodies 28-8 and 22C3.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of PD-L1 in Lung Cancer: From Biology to Clinical Application.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) has emerged as a key biomarker in determining both the progression and prognosis of gastric cancer (GC). Consequently, its detection through immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis is essential for guiding appropriate treatment selection. We conducted an analytical, observational study based on a five-year retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with gastric cancer at a comprehensive oncology center in Colombia. All patients underwent immunohistochemistry (IHC) to assess PD-L1 expression and calculate the Combined Positive Score (CPS). The objective of this study was to compare the positivity detection rates between the 28-8 and 22C3 assays and to evaluate the concordance between them. A descriptive analysis of clinical and pathological variables was performed. Univariate analysis was used to determine the frequency of PD-L1 expression and CPS distribution. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was applied and stratified by PD-L1 status. Concordance between the two assays was assessed using the kappa (κ) index. A total of 175 patients diagnosed with gastric cancer (GC) and tested for PD-L1 expression were included in the study. Complete pathological and IHC data were available for 155 patients. Among them, 39.4% were tested with the 28-8 assay, and 60.6% with the 22C3 assay. PD-L1 positivity was observed in 34.4% of cases using the 28-8 assay and in 28.7% using the 22C3 assay. Among patients with available follow-up data (n = 34), PD-L1 testing was performed using the 22C3 clone, with a positivity rate of 35.3%. In the subgroup analysis of patients tested with both antibodies (n = 20), 60% were PD-L1 positive. Within this subset, 25% had a CPS of 1-4, 16.7% had a CPS of 5-9, and 58.3% had a CPS ≥ 10. For the 22C3 assay specifically, PD-L1 positivity was observed in 40% of cases, with 37.5% having a CPS of 1-4 and 62.5% a CPS ≥ 10; notably, no cases in this group had a CPS of 5-9. The concordance rate between the 28-8 and 22C3 assays was 61%, as measured by the kappa index. The 28-8 clone identified a higher proportion of patients with PD-L1 expression compared to the 22C3 antibody. However, both assays demonstrated a concordance rate of 61%. In the study population, the subgroup with a Combined Positive Score (CPS) ≥ 10 was the most prevalent, suggesting that high PD-L1 expression is relatively common and potentially clinically relevant in this cohort.
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.