Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41415556›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025

Unraveling the complexity of PD-L1 assays: a descriptive review of the methodology, scoring, and practical implications.

Gilad W Vainer, Sunil S Badve, Pathmanathan Rajadurai, Fernando A Soares, Giuseppe Viale, Reinhard Büttner, Shanthy Nuti, Jonathan Juco, Radha Krishnan, Ming-Sound Tsao

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Gilad W Vainer *Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Sunil S Badve *Emory Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Pathmanathan RajaduraiMonash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.
Fernando A SoaresInstituto de Anatomia Patológica, Rede D'Or São Luiz, São Paulo, Brazil.
Giuseppe VialeIEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Reinhard BüttnerUniversity of Cologne Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Shanthy NutiMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States.
Jonathan JucoMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States.
Radha KrishnanMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States.
Ming-Sound TsaoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Over the years, immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axes have substantially improved clinical outcomes for patients with various types of cancer and stages. As a result, PD-L1 is the most recognized biomarker used to guide the selection of patients for treatment with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. To date, there are 4 regulatory agency-approved and commercially available immunohistochemistry assays used to quantify PD-L1 tumor expression, with each assay approved for use with a specific PD-(L)1 inhibitor. In this descriptive review, we concisely summarize the methodology and scoring methods of each assay, as well as some of the challenges associated with real-world use of these assay systems. Results: Each assay system is optimized for specific therapies, with its own anti-PD-L1 antibody, protocol, scoring, and interpretation guidelines. Although the methodologies of the 4 PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay systems are similar, differences in their antibody clones, protocol conditions, instrumentation, and scoring methods limit assay interchangeability. The assays are also highly sensitive; slight deviations to the protocol can increase the risk of misclassifying the PD-(L)1 tumor status of patients. As a result, pathologists are faced with choosing which assay to perform with a limited tumor sample as well as with the challenges associated with the scoring methods and differences in regional regulatory approvals and infrastructure. Conclusion: While the 4 approved PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays provide clinical value, we offer pathologists suggestions to reduce the challenges associated with PD-L1 testing based on assay systems.

Indexed as

immune checkpoint inhibitorsPD-L1 assaysPD-L1 expressionPD-L1 scoring methodregulatory approval

Identifiers

PMID41415556
PMCPMC12710237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.