Assessment of programmed cell death ligand-1 expression with multiple immunohistochemistry antibody clones in non-small cell lung cancer

PD-1/PD-L1 axis: implications in immune regulation, cancer progression, and translational applications

The PD-1/PD-L1 axis is a complex signaling pathway that has an important role in the immune system cells. Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) acts as an immune checkpoint on the T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, natural killer (NK), macrophages, dendritic cells (DCs), monocytes, and myeloid cells. Its ligand, the programmed cell death 1 ligand (PD-L1), is expressed in the surface of the antigen-presenting cells (APCs). The binding of both promotes the downregulation of the T cell response to ensure the activation to prevent the onset of chronic immune inflammation. This axis in the tumor microenvironment (TME) performs a crucial role in the tumor progression and the escape of the tumor by neutralizing the immune system, the engagement of PD-L1 with PD-1 in the T cell causes dysfunctions, neutralization, and exhaustion, providing the tumor mass production. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the functions of the PD-1/PD-L1 system in immune function, cancer, and the potential therapeutic implications of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway for cancer management.

Programmed Death Ligand-1 and Tumor Mutation Burden Testing of Patients With Lung Cancer for Selection of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Pulmonary Pathology Society, and LUNGevity Foundation

CONTEXT.—

Rapid advancements in the understanding and manipulation of tumor-immune interactions have led to the approval of immune therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Certain immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies require the use of companion diagnostics, but methodologic variability has led to uncertainty around test selection and implementation in practice.

OBJECTIVE.—

To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations for the testing of immunotherapy/immunomodulatory biomarkers, including programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and tumor mutation burden (TMB), in patients with lung cancer.

DESIGN.—

The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts in non-small cell lung cancer and biomarker testing to develop evidence-based recommendations in accordance with the standards for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines established by the National Academy of Medicine. A systematic literature review was conducted to address 8 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, recommendations were created from the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.

RESULTS.—

Six recommendation statements were developed.

CONCLUSIONS.—

This guideline summarizes the current understanding and hurdles associated with the use of PD-L1 expression and TMB testing for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy selection in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and presents evidence-based recommendations for PD-L1 and TMB testing in the clinical setting.

An alternatively spliced PD-L1 isoform PD-L1∆3, and PD-L2 expression in breast cancers: implications for eligibility scoring and immunotherapy response

Targeting PD-1/PD-L1 has shown substantial therapeutic response and unprecedented long-term durable responses in the clinic. However, several challenges persist, encompassing the prediction of treatment effectiveness and patient responses, the emergence of treatment resistance, and the necessity for additional biomarkers. Consequently, we comprehensively explored the often-overlooked isoforms of crucial immunotherapy players, leveraging transcriptomic analysis, structural modeling, and immunohistochemistry (IHC) data. Our investigation has led to the identification of an alternatively spliced isoform of PD-L1 that lacks exon 3 (PD-L1∆3) and the IgV domain required to interact with PD-1. PD-L1∆3 is expressed more than the canonical isoform in a subset of breast cancers and other TCGA tumors. Using the deep learning-based protein modeling tool AlphaFold2, we show the lack of a possible interaction between PD-L1∆3 and PD-1. In addition, we present data on the expression of an additional ligand for PD-1, PD-L2. PD-L2 expression is widespread and positively correlates with PD-L1 levels in breast and other tumors. We report enriched epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) signature in high PD-L2 transcript expressing (PD-L2 > PD-L1) tumors in all breast cancer subtypes, highlighting potential crosstalk between EMT and immune evasion. Notably, the estrogen gene signature is downregulated in ER + breast tumors with high PD-L2. The data on PD-L2 IHC positivity but PD-L1 negativity in breast tumors, together with our results on PD-L1∆3, highlight the need to utilize PD-L2 and PD-L1 isoform-specific antibodies for staining patient tissue sections to offer a more precise prediction of the outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Robust Preanalytical Performance of Soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 Assessed by Sensitive ELISAs in Blood

The interaction between programmed death-1 receptor PD-1 and its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2 is involved in self-tolerance, immune escape of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and COVID-19. As blood-based protein markers they bear great potential to improve oncoimmunology research and monitoring of anti-cancer immunotherapy. A variety of preanalytical conditions were tested to assure high quality plasma sample measurements: (i) different time intervals and storage temperatures before and after blood centrifugation; (ii) fresh samples and repeated freeze-thaw-cycles; (iii) different conditions of sample preparation before measurement. Concerning short-term stability, acceptable recoveries for PD-1 between 80 and 120% were obtained when samples were kept up to 24 h at 4 and 25 °C before and after blood centrifugation. Similarly, recoveries for PD-L2 were acceptable for 24 h at 4 °C and 6 h at 25 °C before blood centrifugation and up to 24 h at 4 and 25 °C after centrifugation. Variations for PD-L1 were somewhat higher, however, at very low signal levels. Sample concentrations (ng/mL) were neither affected by the freezing process nor by repeated freeze-thaw cycles with coefficients of variation for PD-1: 9.1%, PD-L1 6.8%, and PD-L2 4.8%. All three biomarkers showed good stability regarding preanalytic conditions of sample handling enabling reliable and reproducible quantification in oncoimmunology research and clinical settings of anti-cancer immunotherapy.

High Quality Performance of Novel Immunoassays for the Sensitive Quantification of Soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 in Blood

Programmed death-1 receptor PD-1(CD279) and its corresponding ligands PD-L1(CD274, B7-H1) and PD-L2(CD273, B7-DC) play important roles in physiological immune tolerance and for immune escape in cancer disease. Hence, the establishment and analytical validation of a novel enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to measure soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 in blood samples according to high quality standards is required. Antibody pairs were used to establish novel highly sensitive ELISAs for all three markers on an open electrochemiluminescence Quickplex platform. Analytical validation comprised intra- and interassay imprecision, limit of quantification, dilution linearity, material comparison and analytical selectivity testing. The methods demonstrated a broad dynamic range and precise measurements down to the pg/mL range. The coefficient of variation (CV) during the intra-assay imprecision measurements with three patient pools did not exceed 10% for all three assays (PD-1: 6.4%, 6.5%, 7.8%, PD-L1: 7.1%, 4.2%, 6.8%; PD-L2: 4.5%, 10.0%, 9.9%). Dilution linearity experiments in both buffer and heparin plasma displayed good linearity. Selectivity was shown for each marker in titration cross-reactivity experiments up to concentrations of at least 15 ng/mL of these, possibly confounding other markers. Soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 can be measured highly sensitively in serum and plasma and can safely be applied to clinical study settings.

Biomarkers of response to PD-1 pathway blockade

The binding of T cell immune checkpoint proteins programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) to their ligands allows immune evasion by tumours. The development of therapeutic antibodies, termed checkpoint inhibitors, that bind these molecules or their ligands, has provided a means to release this brake on the host anti-tumour immune response. However, these drugs are costly, are associated with potentially severe side effects, and only benefit a small subset of patients. It is therefore important to identify biomarkers that discriminate between responders and non-responders. This review discusses the determinants for a successful response to antibodies that bind PD-1 or its ligand PD-L1, dividing them into markers found in the tumour biopsy and those in non-tumour samples. It provides an update on the established predictive biomarkers (tumour PD-L1 expression, tumour mismatch repair deficiency and tumour mutational burden) and assesses the evidence for new potential biomarkers.

Analytical Concordance of PD-L1 Assays Utilizing Antibodies From FDA-Approved Diagnostics in Advanced Cancers: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

Four programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry assays (28-8, 22C3, SP263, and SP142) have been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Analytical concordance between these assays has been evaluated in multiple studies. This systematic review included studies that investigated the analytical concordance of immunohistochemistry assays utilizing two or more PD-L1 antibodies from FDA-approved diagnostics for evaluation of PD-L1 expression on tumor or immune cells across a range of tumor types and algorithms.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE to identify studies published between January 1, 2010, and March 31, 2019, that evaluated analytical concordance between two or more assays based on antibodies from FDA-approved assays. Proceedings of key oncology and pathology congresses that took place between January 2016 and March 2019 were searched for abstracts of studies evaluating PD-L1 assay concordance.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies across a range of tumor types met the selection criteria. Concordance between 28-8-, 22C3-, and SP263-based assays in lung cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was high when used to assess PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs). SP142-based assays had overall low concordance with other approved assays when used to assess PD-L1 expression on TCs. Analytical concordance for assessment of PD-L1 expression on immune cells was variable and generally lower than for PD-L1 expression on TCs.

CONCLUSION

A large body of evidence supports the potential interchangeability of 28-8-, 22C3-, and SP263-based assays for the assessment of PD-L1 expression on TCs in lung cancer. Further studies are required in tumor types for which less evidence is available.

A Potential Predictive Biomarker for Miller/Payne Grading: PD-L1 Expression before Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the value of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker for Miller/Payne grading before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The expression of PD-L1 in pretreatment biopsies of breast cancer was assessed by immunohistochemistry in tissue microarrays. The results were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

Of 53 female patients, 10 (18.9%) patients had a grade 5 (G5) response, and 12 (22.6%) patients showed PD-L1 expression, including 7 (13.2%) patients with staining in tumor cells (TCs) and 8 (15.1%) patients with staining in peritumoral lymphocytes (PTLCs). Logistic regression analysis revealed that G5 response to NACT was significantly associated with TCs or PTLCs PD-L1 positivity, whether with univariate analysis (TCs PD-L1: p = 0.00, OR 20.50, 95% CI 3.11-134.94; PTLCs PD-L1: p = 0.02, OR 6.50, 95% CI 1.27-33.20) or with multivariate analysis (TCs PD-L1: p = 0.00, OR 42.23, 95% CI 3.36-530.90; PTLCs PD-L1: p = 0.02, OR 9.07, 95% CI 1.37-60.02). The same trend was found in the luminal subgroup analysis (TCs PD-L1: p = 0.02, OR 23.43, 95% CI 1.66-331.58; PTLCs PD-L1: p = 0.01, OR 47.89, 95% CI 2.47-927.41).

CONCLUSION

G5 response to NACT in breast cancer was significantly associated with TCs or PTLCs PD-L1-positive expression in pretreatment biopsies; it can be expected that PD-L1 will become a new independent biomarker of response to NACT in breast cancer.

Comparability of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) immunohistochemistry is used to determine which patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) respond best to treatment with PD‐L1 inhibitors. For each inhibitor, a unique immunohistochemical assay was developed. This systematic review gives an up‐to‐date insight into the comparability of standardised immunohistochemical assays and laboratory‐developed tests (LDTs), focusing specifically on tumour cell (TC) staining and scoring. A systematic search was performed identifying publications that assessed interassay, interobserver and/or interlaboratory concordance of PD‐L1 assays and LDTs in tissue of NSCLC patients. Of 4294 publications identified through the systematic search, 27 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were of sufficient methodological quality. Studies assessing interassay concordance found high agreement between assays 22C3, 28‐8 and SP263 and properly validated LDTs, and lower concordance for comparisons involving SP142. A decrease in concordance, however, is seen with use of cut‐offs, which hampers interchangeability of PD‐L1 immunohistochemistry assays and LDTs. Studies assessing interobserver concordance found high agreement for all assays and LDTs, but lower agreement with use of a 1% cut‐off. This may be problematic in clinical practice, as discordance between pathologists at this cut‐off may result in some patients being denied valuable treatment options. Finally, five studies assessed interlaboratory concordance and found moderate to high agreement levels for various assays and LDTs. However, to assess the actual existence of interlaboratory variation in PD‐L1 testing and PD‐L1 positivity in clinical practice, studies using real‐world clinical pathology data are needed.

Multicentre study on the consistency of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry as predictive test for immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

AIMS

Investigate the impact of interlaboratory- and interobserver variability of immunohistochemistry on the assessment of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Two tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed from 50 (TMA-A) and 51 (TMA-B) resected NSCLC cases, and distributed among eight centres. Immunostaining for PD-L1 was performed using Agilent's 22C3 pharmDx Assay (pharmDx) and/or a 22C3 laboratory developed test (LDT). The interlaboratory variability of staining- and interobserver variability of scoring for PD-L1 were assessed in selected critical samples (samples at the cut-off of positivity) and non-critical samples. Also, PD-L1 epitope deterioration in time in stored unstained slides was analysed. Krippendorff's alpha values (0=maximal, 1=no variability) were calculated as measure for variability.

RESULTS

For interlaboratory variability of immunostaining, the percentage of PD-L1 positive cases among centres ranged 40%-51% (1% cut-off) and 23%-30% (50% cut-off). Alpha values at 1% cut-off were 0.88 (pharmDx) and 0.87 (LDT) and at 50% cut-off 0.82 (pharmDx) and 0.95 (LDT). Interobserver variability of scoring resulted in PD-L1 positive cases ranging 29%-55% (1% cut-off) and 14%-30% (50% cut-off) among pathologists. Alpha values were at 1% cut-off 0.83 (TMA-A) and 0.66 (TMA-B), and at 50% cut-off 0.77 (TMA-A) and 0.78 (TMA-B). Interlaboratory variability of staining was higher (p<0.001) in critical samples than in non-critical samples at 50% cut-off. Furthermore, PD-L1 epitope deterioration in unstained slides was observed after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide insight in factors contributing to variability of immunohistochemical assessment of PD-L1, and contribute to more reliable predictive testing for PD-L1.

PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells is highly associated with M2 TAM and aggressive malignant potential in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TCs) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) plays important roles in regulating the antitumor T cell response. However, the mechanistic and clinical significance of the effect of PD-L1 on TCs versus ICs remains unclear. On the other hand, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), M2 macrophages in particular, can promote tumor progression.

METHODS

We evaluated PD-L1 expression on TCs and ICs using Ventana SP263 assay and the stromal M2 TAM distribution using CD163 staining in 160 consecutive patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

RESULTS

PD-L1 expression on TCs and ICs was significantly higher in stromal M2 TAM-high group than in stromal M2 TAM-low group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Regarding the clinical significance of PD-L1, PD-L1 expression on TCs was significantly associated with histology (p = 0.001), tumor differentiation (p < 0.001) and nodal status (p = 0.029). Furthermore, PD-L1 expression on ICs was significantly associated with histology (p < 0.001), tumor differentiation (p < 0.001), tumor status (p = 0.024), nodal status (p = 0.016), and pathologic stage (p = 0.004). The disease-free survival rate was significantly lower in patients with PD-L1-positive TC than in those with PD-L1-negative TC (p = 0.023), as well as in patients with PD-L1-positive IC than in those with PD-L1-negative IC (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the overall survival rate was significantly lower in patients with PD-L1-positive IC than in those with PD-L1-negative IC (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

During tumor progression in NSCLC, the presence of M2 TAMs might affect PD-L1 expression both on TCs and ICs. In patients with NSCLC, PD-L1 expression both on TCs and ICs was associated with malignant behaviors, which was more in case of ICs.