PD‐L1 Immunohistochemistry Assays for Lung Cancer: Results from Phase 1 of the Blueprint PD‐L1 IHC Assay Comparison Project

By F. Hirsch, A. McElhinny, D. Stanforth, J. Ranger-Moore, M. Jansson, Karina Kulangara, William J. Richardson, P. Towne, D. Hanks, B. Vennapusa and 12 more. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 2017

1,206 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Oncology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8759be7baab59caa451ea4b61dcaeaf82b02fc7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Oncology

1. J. Gong
2. S. Reddi
3. Alexander Chehrazi-Raffle
4. Ravi Salgia
5. David L. Rimm
6. Janis Taube

In Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

1. J. Gong
2. S. Reddi
3. Alexander Chehrazi-Raffle
4. Ravi Salgia

Citations in the corpus

• Current WHO Guidelines and the Critical Role of Immunohistochemical Markers in the Subclassification of Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC). Moving from Targeted Therapy to Immunotherapy (2017, methodology): “For example, the reporting for the assay with the 28–8 antibody uses a 3 tiered scoring system for positive staining (1%, 5%, and 10%), while the assay with the 22C3 antibody uses a different 3 tiered scoring system (<1%, 1%–49%, and ≥50%)[17].”
• Biomarkers for predicting efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (2018, background): “And different antibodies and IHC platforms lead to the incomparability of results among trials as well [33].”
• Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study (2017, neutral): “Efforts to standardize testing for PD-L1 expression are underway, including the Blueprint PD-L1 IHC comparison project [32].”
• PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Comparability Study in Real-Life Clinical Samples: Results of Blueprint Phase 2 Project (2018, result): “The results from the Blueprint (BP) phase 1 (BP1) study demonstrated that three PD-L1 assays (22C3, 28-8, and SP263) showed comparable analytical performance for assessment of PD-L1 expression on TCs, whereas the SP-142 PD-L1 assay appeared to stain fewer TCs compared with the other assays.(7) In co”
• A Prospective, Multi-Institutional Assessment of Four Assays for PD-L1 Expression in NSCLC by Immunohistochemistry (2017, methodology): “We believe the difference is minimal and note the similarity in the appearance of the images seen inour study to thoseshownin theBlueprint study.(5,17) Furthermore, the differences in the assays (eTable 2 in the Supplement) appear to beminimal.”
• Antitumor Activity and Safety of Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Results from the Phase 2 KEYNOTE-100 Study. (2019, background): “It is important to note that across studies of different checkpoint inhibitors, PD-L1 assays use different antibodies with a variety of cut points, each with unique and different thresholds for defining PD-L1 positivity [17, 18].”
• Development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors as a form of cancer immunotherapy: a comprehensive review of registration trials and future considerations (2018, background): “This was shown in a recent multiinstitutional collaborative effort to provide information on the analytic comparability of the 4 FDA-approved IHC assays of PD-L1 expression (22C3, 28-8, SP142, and SP263) [59].”