Digital quantitative assessment of PD-L1 using digital spatial profiling

Abstract

The assessment of programmed death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression by Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved predictive marker to select responders to checkpoint blockade anti-PD-1/PD-L1 axis immunotherapies. Different PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays use different antibodies and different scoring methods in tumor cells and immune cells. Multiple studies have compared the performance of these assays with variable results. Here, we investigate an alternative method for assessment of PD-L1 using a new technology known as digital spatial profiling. We use a previously described standardization tissue microarray (TMA) to assess the accuracy of the method and compare digital spatial profiler (DSP) to each FDA-approved PD-L1 assays, one LDT assay and three quantitative fluorescence assays. The standardized cell line Index tissue microarray contains 10 isogenic cells lines in triplicates expressing various ranges of PD-L1. The dynamic range of PD-L1 digital counts was measured in the ten cell lines on the Index TMA using the GeoMx DSP assay and read on the nCounter platform. The digital method shows very high correlation with immunohistochemistry scored with quantitative software and with quantitative fluorescence. High correlation of PD-L1 digital DSP counts were seen between rows on the same Index TMA. Finally, experiments from two Index TMAs showed reproducibility of DSP counts were independent of variable slide storage time over a three-week period after antibody labeling but before collection of cleaved tags. In summary, DSP appears to have quantitative potential comparable to quantitative immunohistochemistry. It is possible that this technology could be used as a PD-L1 protein measurement system for companion diagnostic testing for immune therapy.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Index TMA layout for PD-L1 quantification.
Fig. 2: Overview of experimental plan.
Fig. 3: Correlation of Log2 transformed PD-L1 data from GeoMx DSP, QIF and IHC DAB.
Fig. 4: Reproducibility across rows and experiments stained and collected in the same week.
Fig. 5: Reproducibility across rows collected one week apart from same staining.

References

  1. 1.

    Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, Vicente D, Murakami S, Hui R, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1919–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, Felip E, Perez-Gracia JL, Han JY, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1540–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Horn L, Spigel DR, Vokes EE, Holgado E, Ready N, Steins M, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: two-year outcomes from two randomized, open-label, phase III trials (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3924–33.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    McDermott DF, Sosman JA, Sznol M, Massard C, Gordon MS, Hamid O, et al. Atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: long-term safety, clinical activity, and immune correlates from a phase Ia study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:833–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Patel SP, Kurzrock R. PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14:847–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, Hwu WJ, Topalian SL, Hwu P, et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2455–65.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gadiot J, Hooijkaas AI, Kaiser AD, van Tinteren H, van Boven H, Blank C. Overall survival and PD-L1 expression in metastasized malignant melanoma. Cancer. 2011;117:2192–201.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Batenchuk C, Albitar M, Zerba K, Sudarsanam S, Chizhevsky V, Jin C, et al. A real-world, comparative study of FDA-approved diagnostic assays PD-L1 IHC 28-8 and 22C3 in lung cancer and other malignancies. J Clin Pathol. 2018;71:1078–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tretiakova M, Fulton R, Kocherginsky M, Long T, Ussakli C, Antic T, et al. Concordance study of PD-L1 expression in primary and metastatic bladder carcinomas: comparison of four commonly used antibodies and RNA expression. Mod Pathol. 2018;31:623–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fujimoto D, Sato Y, Uehara K, Ishida K, Fukuoka J, Morimoto T, et al. Predictive performance of four programmed cell death ligand 1 assay systems on nivolumab response in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:377–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hendry S, Byrne DJ, Wright GM, Young RJ, Sturrock S, Cooper WA, et al. Comparison of four PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:367–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rimm DL, Han G, Taube JM, Yi ES, Bridge JA, Flieder DB, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional, pathologist-based assessment of 4 immunohistochemistry assays for PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1051–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ratcliffe MJ, Sharpe A, Midha A, Barker C, Scott M, Scorer P, et al. Agreement between programmed cell death ligand-1 diagnostic assays across multiple protein expression cutoffs in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:3585–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D, Ranger-Moore J, Jansson M, Kulangara K, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of the blueprint PD-L1 IHC assay comparison project. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:208–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gaule P, Smithy JW, Toki M, Rehman J, Patell-Socha F, Cougot D, et al. A quantitative comparison of antibodies to programmed cell death 1 ligand 1. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:256–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tsao MS, Kerr KM, Kockx M, Beasley MB, Borczuk AC, Botling J, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry comparability study in real-life clinical samples: results of blueprint phase 2 project. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:1302–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Brunnstrom H, Johansson A, Westbom-Fremer S, Backman M, Djureinovic D, Patthey A, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry in clinical diagnostics of lung cancer: inter-pathologist variability is higher than assay variability. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1411–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Merritt CR, Ong GT, Church S, Barker K, Geiss G, Hoang M, et al. High multiplex, digital spatial profiling of proteins and RNA in fixed tissue using genomic detection methods. bioRxiv. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1101/559021.

  19. 19.

    Toki MI, Merritt CR, Wong PF, Smithy JW, Kluger HM, Syrigos KN, et al. High-plex predictive marker discovery for melanoma immunotherapy-treated patients using digital spatial profiling. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:5503–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bankhead P, Loughrey MB, Fernandez JA, Dombrowski Y, McArt DG, Dunne PD, et al. QuPath: open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sharma P, Allison JP. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science. 2015;348:56–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by instrumentation from NanoString and funding from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Yale SPORE in Lung Cancer.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DLR and SG conceived the study, supervised the analysis and revised the final version of the manuscript. SG and JZ selected the study specimens and carried out the GeoMx DSP data analysis. SG drafted the manuscript. KF performed the GeoMx DSP assay. SMM carried out fluorescent and chromogenic IHC assay. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Rimm.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DLR is a consultant/advisor to Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Agendia, Biocept, BMS, Cell Signaling Technology, Cepheid, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, InVicro/Konica Minolta, Lilly, Merck, Perkin Elmer, PAIGE.AI, Sanofi and Ultivue. KF is an employee of Nanostring. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, S., Zugazagoitia, J., Martinez-Morilla, S. et al. Digital quantitative assessment of PD-L1 using digital spatial profiling. Lab Invest 100, 1311–1317 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41374-020-0424-5

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links