Abstract
Programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunostaining, which aids clinicians in decision-making on immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, is sometimes performed on cytological specimens. In this study, differences in cytology fixation and cell block (CB) processing between pathology laboratories were assessed, and the influence of these differences on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was investigated. Questionnaires on cytology processing were sent to all Dutch laboratories. Information gathered from the responses was added to data on all Dutch NSCLC patients with a mention of PD-L1 testing in their cytopathology report from July 2017 to December 2018, retrieved from PALGA (the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands). Case mix-adjusted PD-L1 positivity rates were determined for laboratories with known fixation and CB method. The influence of differences in cytology processing on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed by comparing positivity rates adjusted for differences in the variables fixative and CB method with positivity rates not adjusted for differences in these variables. Twenty-eight laboratories responded to the survey and reported 19 different combinations of fixation and CB method. Interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was assessed in 19 laboratories. Correcting for differences in the fixative and CB method resulted in a reduction (from eight (42.1%) to five (26.3%)) in the number of laboratories that differed significantly from the mean in PD-L1 positivity. Substantial variation in cytology fixation and CB processing methods was observed between Dutch pathology laboratories, which partially explains the existing considerable interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; de Boer, Mirthe 1 ; van Dooijeweert, Carmen 1 ; van Lindert, Anne S. R. 2 ; Deckers, Ivette A. G. 3 ; Voorham, Quirinus J. M. 3 ; Willems, Stefan M. 4 1 University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Department of Pathology, Utrecht, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1) (ISNI:0000000120346234)
2 University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Department of Pulmonology, Utrecht, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1) (ISNI:0000000120346234)
3 PALGA Foundation, Houten, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1)
4 University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Department of Pathology, Utrecht, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1) (ISNI:0000000120346234); University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, Groningen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.4494.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 9558 4598)





