↓ Skip to main content

Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry Testing: A Review of Analytical Assays and Clinical Implementation in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
patent
11 patents
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
347 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Immunohistochemistry Testing: A Review of Analytical Assays and Clinical Implementation in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, October 2017
DOI 10.1200/jco.2017.74.7642
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reinhard Büttner, John R Gosney, Birgit Guldhammer Skov, Julien Adam, Noriko Motoi, Kenneth J Bloom, Manfred Dietel, John W Longshore, Fernando López-Ríos, Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Giuseppe Viale, Andrew C Wotherspoon, Keith M Kerr, Ming-Sound Tsao

Abstract

Purpose Three programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors are currently approved for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with pembrolizumab in NSCLC requires PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are approved without PD-L1 testing, though US Food and Drug Administration-cleared complementary PD-L1 tests are available for both. PD-L1 IHC assays used to assess PD-L1 expression in patients treated with programmed death-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials include PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx (28-8), PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx (22C3), Ventana PD-L1 SP142 (SP142), and Ventana PD-L1 SP263 (SP263). Differences in antibodies and IHC platforms have raised questions about comparability among these assays and their diagnostic use. This review provides practical information to help physicians and pathologists understand analytical features and comparability of various PD-L1 IHC assays and their diagnostic use. Methods We reviewed and summarized published or otherwise reported studies (January 2016 to January 2017) on clinical trial and laboratory-developed PD-L1 IHC assays (LDAs). Studies assessing the effect of diagnostic methods on PD-L1 expression levels were analyzed to address practical issues related to tissue samples used for testing. Results High concordance and interobserver reproducibility were observed with the 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 clinical trial assays for PD-L1 expression on tumor cell membranes, whereas lower PD-L1 expression was detected with SP142. Immune-cell PD-L1 expression was variable and interobserver concordance was poor. Inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity had variable effects on PD-L1 expression. Concordance among LDAs was variable. Conclusion High concordance among 28-8, 22C3, and SP263 when assessing PD-L1 expression on tumor cell membranes suggests possible interchangeability of their clinical use for NSCLC but not for assessment of PD-L1 expression on immune cells. Development of LDAs requires stringent standardization before their recommendation for routine clinical use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 17%
Other 32 15%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 52 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 70 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,607,258
of 25,608,265 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#3,952
of 22,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,797
of 338,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#69
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,608,265 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.