| Abstract: |
The assessment of the expression of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) using immunohisto-chemistry (IHC) has been controversial since its introduction. The methods of assessment and the range of assays and platforms contribute to confusion. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of PD-L1 IHC is the combined positive score (CPS) method of interpretation of IHC results. Although the CPS method is prescribed for more indications than any other PD-L1 scoring system, its reproducibility has never been rigorously assessed. In this study, we collected a series of 108 gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer cases, stained them using the Food and Drug Administration-approved 22C3 assay, scanned them, and then circulated them to 14 pathologists at 13 institutions for the assessment of interpretative concordance for the CPS system. We found that higher cut points (10 or 20) performed better than a CPS of <1 or >1. We used the Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests algorithm to assess how the CPS system might perform in the real-world setting and found that the cut points of <1 or >1 showed an overall percent agreement of only 30% among the pathologist raters, with a plateau occurring at 8 raters. The raters performed better at higher cut points. However, the best cut point of <20 versus that of >20 was still disappointing, with a plateau at an overall percent agreement of 70% (at 7 raters). Although there is no ground truth for CPS, we compared the score with quantitative messenger RNA measurement and showed no relationship between the score (at any cut point) and messenger RNA amount. In summary, we showed that CPS |
