Abstract PD5-01: Prospective multi-institutional evaluation of pathologist assessment of PD-L1 assays in triple negative breast cancer
Authors: Emily Suzanne Reisenbichler, Gang Han, Vasiliki Pelekanou, Vesal Yaghoobi, Fahad S Ahmed, Andrew Bellizzi, Veerle Bossuyt, Jane Brock, Kimberly Cole, Oluwole Fadare, Omar Hameed, Krisztina Hanley, Beth T Harrison, M G Kuba, Amy Ly, Dylan Miller, Mirna Podoll, Anja C Roden, Mary A Sanders, Kamaljeet Singh, Shi Wei, Hannah Wen, Lajos Pusztai, David L Rimm
Journal: Cancer Research (2020)

Abstract Background: The IMpassion130 study demonstrated prolonged overall survival when atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, was added to nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1 positive patients with advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Approximately 40% of tumors were PD-L1 positive, utilizing a cutoff of ≥ 1% immune cell (IC) staining with the Ventana SP142 immunohistochemical (IHC) assay. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this assay as a companion test to determine patient eligibility for atezolizumab therapy. However, literature in lung cancer shows that pathologists have a high discordance in assessing PD-L1 on IC. The FDA companion test documentation for SP142 shows high inter-laboratory reproducibility with nearly 95% overall percent agreement (OPA) between 2 readers for 2 category scoring of IC (positive versus negative) in TNBC in a central laboratory. PD-L1 testing for breast cancer is now becoming widespread in pathology laboratories. The goal of this study was to assess concordance in PD-L1 scoring between 19 pathologists from 14 institutions examining the same 86 TNBC tissues stained with the SP142 and SP263 antibodies. We also present a new method to determine the minimum number for evaluators needed to estimate concordance between large numbers of readers as occurs in real life setting. Methods: Full tissue sections were stained exactly as prescribed on the label on the Ventana Benchmark with the SP142 and SP263 PD-L1 assays. Sixty-eight and 76 cases were evaluable respectively. Stained slides were scanned and digital files distributed to pathologists who independently scored cases as either negative (&amp;lt; 1% IC staining) or positive (≥ 1% IC staining) and estimated the % of IC staining for positive cases. We applied a method that we call Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests (ONEST). For any combination of pathologists, we can quantify the degree of overall agreement using the proportion of tissue samples upon which all selected pathologists agreed, which can lead to a plot of non-increasing trajectory of agreement as the number of pathologists increases. We computed and plotted the empirical estimate of the overall agreement with the 95% confidence interval (CI) from 1000 randomly selected permutations of the pathologists. Results: PD-L1 was interpreted as positive with SP263 in an average of 78% of cases compared to 58% with the SP142 assay (p&amp;lt;.0001). IC positive continuous scores ranged from 1-95% (mean=20%) and 1-90% (mean=10%) for SP263 and SP142. Complete 2 category (positive vs negative) scoring concordance across all observers was achieved in 38 cases (50%) with SP263 and 26 cases (38%) with SP142. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for 2 category scoring of SP263 and SP142 was 0.513 and 0.560 respectively. ONEST plots made for each assay for 19 pathologists showed a decrease in OPA as number of observers increased, reaching a low plateau of approximately 0.46 at 10 observers for SP263 and 0.42 at 8 observers for SP142. Conclusions: Utilizing the FDA approved SP142 assay, we found a higher prevalence of PD-L1 positive tumors than published in the IMpassion130 trial but lower prevalence than seen with the SP263 assay. The different proportion of positive cases seen with two different assays highlights the need to establish cutoffs for each assay to correspond with clinical benefit. The ICC of scoring immune cells with both PD-L1 assays showed poor reproducibility across multiple pathologists. The ONEST analysis finds a plateau with 10 pathologists, only reaching an OPA of 0.4 for immune cell assessment. This suggests that more than half of the pathologists in real world situations may mis-assign patient IC scores. This could lead to a high percentage of patients either receiving atezolizumab, when they are unlikely to benefit or not receiving atezolizumab when they may benefit. Citation Format: Emily Suzanne Reisenbichler, Gang Han, Vasiliki Pelekanou, Vesal Yaghoobi, Fahad S Ahmed, Andrew Bellizzi, Veerle Bossuyt, Jane Brock, Kimberly Cole, Oluwole Fadare, Omar Hameed, Krisztina Hanley, Beth T Harrison, M G Kuba, Amy Ly, Dylan Miller, Mirna Podoll, Anja C Roden, Mary A Sanders, Kamaljeet Singh, Shi Wei, Hannah Wen, Lajos Pusztai, David L Rimm. Prospective multi-institutional evaluation of pathologist assessment of PD-L1 assays in triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-01.