Importance of choice of materials and methods in PD‐L1 and TIL assessment in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Issue 3 (4th July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: De Meulenaere, Astrid; Vermassen, Tijl; Creytens, David; Aspeslagh, Sandrine; Deron, Philippe; Duprez, Frederic; Rottey, Sylvie; Van Dorpe, Jo A; Ferdinande, Liesbeth
• Is Part Of: Histopathology. Volume 73:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: 500
• Page End: 509
• Publication Date: 2018-07-04
• Subjects: biomarker -- methodology -- oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma -- PD‐L1 -- tumour‐infiltrating lymphocytes; Histology, Pathological -- Periodicals; 611.018
• DOI: 10.1111/his.13650
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-0167

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: A great deal of research is being conducted into PD‐L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and tumour‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as predictive or prognostic biomarkers for immunotherapy, although several practical issues exist concerning their assessment. The aim of this research was therefore to assess the importance of choice of materials and methods in PD‐L1 and TILs scoring in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Methods and results: IHC for PD‐L1 (SP142 and 22C3 clone) and TILs subtyping was performed on formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tissue slides (biopsy, resection and/or lymph nodes specimens) of 99 patients with OSCC. A comparative analysis of PD‐L1 and TILs scoring was made between different types of tissue specimens, between different PD‐L1 clones, between TILs and different subsets of TILs and between the quantitative and semiquantitative assessments. PD‐L1 scoring resulted in fair to moderate agreement for 22C3 and SP142 between various tissue specimens, with higher agreement at higher cut‐off values, and in moderate agreement for 22C3 versus SP142. Evaluation by four independent observers proved substantial inter‐rater agreement for both clones with high consistency in their ratings. Moderate agreement was observed for TILs and TILs subsets for the comparison between biopsy and resection. Lastly, strong correlations were found between quantitative and semiquantitative assessment for all PD‐L1 and TILs scores. Conclusions: Our results highlight the challenges associated with the evaluation of PD‐L1 and TILs in OSCC. Further research is warranted to evaluate the use of these biomarkers in order to allow implementation of PD‐L1 and TILs infiltrate as biomarkers in daily clinical practice.