Search

Abstract The efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy increased with increasing programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) expression, as quantified by combined positive score (CPS; PD‐L1 expression on both tumour cells and immune cells) in patients with previously treated metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE‐119 study. This exploratory analysis was conducted to determine whether the expression of PD‐L1 on tumour cells contributes to the predictive value of PD‐L1 CPS in mTNBC. PD‐L1 expression in tumour samples was assessed using PD‐L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx and quantified using both CPS and tumour proportion score (TPS; PD‐L1 expression on tumour cells alone). Calculated immune cell density (CID) was defined as CPS minus TPS. The ability of each scoring method (CPS, TPS, and CID) to predict clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab was evaluated. With pembrolizumab, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.58–0.80) for CPS, 0.55 (95% CI = 0.46–0.64) for TPS, and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56–0.77) for CID. After correction for cutoff prevalence, CPS performed as well as, if not better than, CID with respect to predicting objective response rate, progression‐free survival, and overall survival. Data from this exploratory analysis suggest that, although PD‐L1 expression on immune cells alone is predictive of response to programmed death 1 blockade in mTNBC, adding tumour PD‐L1 expression assessment (i.e. CPS, which combines immune cell and tumour cell PD‐L1 expression) may improve prediction. PD‐L1 CPS thus remains an effective and broadly applicable uniform scoring system for enriching response to programmed death 1 blockade with pembrolizumab in mTNBC as well as other tumour types.

We conducted an analysis across multiple PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) indications to establish concordance of a 22C3 antibody-based laboratory-developed test (LDT) on the Ventana BenchMark XT or BenchMark ULTRA platform and the regulatory-approved PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx in cervical cancer (CC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and urothelial carcinoma (UC). Tumor specimens from each tumor type were stained with 22C3 antibody and scored using the 22C3 antibody-based LDT, and scores were compared with those using PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx. PD-L1 status was measured by the pathologist using CPS as a continuous score and using clinically relevant cutoffs (CC, ≥1 and ≥10; HNSCC, ≥1 and ≥20; ESCC, TNBC, and UC, ≥10). The agreement between the BenchMark platforms and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and a contingency table for clinical interpretation. A total of 522 samples were evaluated for the pan-tumor analysis (CC, n = 77; ESCC, n = 80; HNSCC, n = 126; TNBC, n = 118, UC, n = 121). Most clinical interpretations of PD-L1 status were concordant between the BenchMark XT and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx for all five tumor types with regard to negative percentage agreement (NPA; 83-97%), positive percentage agreement (PPA; 86-100%), and overall percentage agreement (OPA; 90-97%); the ICC by tumor type was high (≥0.88). Importantly, the pan-tumor ICC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94-0.96). Thirty additional TNBC samples were evaluated using the BenchMark ULTRA and PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx; the NPA, PPA, and OPA were 100%. The 22C3 antibody-based LDT on Ventana BenchMark XT and BenchMark ULTRA platforms demonstrated high concordance with the regulatory-approved PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx across multiple tumor types. These findings suggest the comparability of PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx with an LDT based on the 22C3 antibody.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trial results have suggested that programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression measured by immunohistochemistry may predict response to anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy. Results on the association between PD-L1 expression and survival among patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy are inconsistent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS) among 204 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, from 2007 to 2012. PD-L1 expression was measured using a prototype immunohistochemistry assay with the anti–PD-L1 22C3 antibody (Merck). PD-L1 strong positivity and weak positivity were defined to be traceable to the clinical trial version of the assay. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of patients had PD-L1 strong-positive tumors, and 50% had PD-L1 weak-positive tumors. No statistically significant association was found between PD-L1 expression and survival; adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.03; median OS, 9.0 months) for the PD-L1 strong-positive group and 1.07 (0.74-1.55; median OS, 9.8 months) for the PD-L1 weak-positive group compared with the PD-L1–negative group (median OS, 7.5 months). No association was seen between PD-L1 expression and OS when PD-L1 expression levels were stratified by median or tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: In concordance with previous studies, we found PD-L1 measured by immunohistochemistry to be frequently expressed in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, PD-L1 expression is not a strong prognostic marker in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with chemotherapy.