Back to Search Start Over

Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement of PD-L1 SP142 Scoring in Breast Carcinoma-A Large Multi-Institutional International Study

Authors :
Mohamed Zaakouk
Mieke Van Bockstal
Christine Galant
Grace Callagy
Elena Provenzano
Roger Hunt
Corrado D’Arrigo
Nahla M. Badr
Brendan O’Sullivan
Jane Starczynski
Bruce Tanchel
Yasmeen Mir
Paul Lewis
Abeer M. Shaaban
Zaakouk, Mohamed [0000-0003-1149-773X]
Shaaban, Abeer M [0000-0001-5784-8705]
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Source :
Cancers, Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages: 1511
Publication Year :
2023
Publisher :
MDPI AG, 2023.

Abstract

Peer reviewed: True<br />Funder: Egyptian Cultural and Educational Bureau<br />The assessment of PD-L1 expression in TNBC is a prerequisite for selecting patients for immunotherapy. The accurate assessment of PD-L1 is pivotal, but the data suggest poor reproducibility. A total of 100 core biopsies were stained using the VENTANA Roche SP142 assay, scanned and scored by 12 pathologists. Absolute agreement, consensus scoring, Cohen's Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were assessed. A second scoring round after a washout period to assess intra-observer agreement was carried out. Absolute agreement occurred in 52% and 60% of cases in the first and second round, respectively. Overall agreement was substantial (Kappa 0.654-0.655) and higher for expert pathologists, particularly on scoring TNBC (6.00 vs. 0.568 in the second round). The intra-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect (Kappa: 0.667-0.956), regardless of PD-L1 scoring experience. The expert scorers were more concordant in evaluating staining percentage compared with the non-experienced scorers (R2 = 0.920 vs. 0.890). Discordance predominantly occurred in low-expressing cases around the 1% value. Some technical reasons contributed to the discordance. The study shows reassuringly strong inter- and intra-observer concordance among pathologists in PD-L1 scoring. A proportion of low-expressors remain challenging to assess, and these would benefit from addressing the technical issues, testing a different sample and/or referring for expert opinions.

Details

Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Cancers, Volume 15, Issue 5, Pages: 1511
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....2a8e9e6ae179d21ff188478f02676c58
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.94590