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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Globally, lung cancer is one of the most frequent forms of cancer, with more than 2.2 million new cases in 2020, accounting for 11.4% of all cancer cases worldwide [1]. Lung cancer also accounts for the most cancer-related deaths worldwide [1], with a 5-year survival rate of only 10–20% for patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 in most countries [2]. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), one of the two main histopathological types (the other being small cell lung cancer), accounts for 85% of lung cancer patients [3, 4]. For patients with advanced NSCLC without actionable mutations in driver genes such as EGFR or ALK, immunotherapy may prove beneficial and has become part of standard treatment. Patients with stage IV NSCLC may qualify for first-line monotherapy with pembrolizumab, a programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, when at least 50% of their tumor cells show expression of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) [5, 6]. Similarly, patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC may receive consolidation treatment with durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, after chemoradiotherapy, for which the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommended that patients should have a PD-L1 expression of at least 1% on tumor cells [7].
PD-L1 expression is determined by pathologists through immunohistochemistry, which has been validated on histological specimens. In clinical practice, however, quite often, minimally invasive techniques such as fine needle aspirations (FNA) are used to collect diagnostic material [8]. In those instances, pathologists may be asked to perform PD-L1 immunostaining on cytology samples, for which usually cell blocks (CBs) are prepared. While histological specimens are generally processed into formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks, numerous ways of processing cytology specimens into cell blocks exist [9]. What is more, various non-formaldehyde-based fixatives are used for the fixation of cytological specimens [9, 10]. We and others have shown that the use of alcohol-based fixatives may negatively influence the immunoreactivity of various antibodies [11,12,13,14], including PD-L1 [15,16,17]. We have also demonstrated that a considerable amount of variation in PD-L1 positivity rates exists between pathology laboratories in a real-world setting, both in PD-L1 positivity rates based on histological material and in PD-L1 positivity rates based on cytological material [18]. Besides inter-observer variability between pathologists, pre-analytical factors such as use of different fixatives and CB methods might play a role in causing this variation, too. In this study, the variation in fixation and CB processing of cytology samples between pathology laboratories in the Netherlands was assessed. Subsequently, we investigated whether variation in fixation and processing methods influences interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity, using real-world clinical pathology data of a large cohort of NSCLC patients.
Materials and methods
Survey on fixation and CB methods
In order to gather information on methods used for fixation and CB processing of cytology samples in each individual laboratory, a questionnaire was sent to all pathology laboratories in the Netherlands. The questionnaire contained questions on how many different processing methods were used within the individual laboratory, which collection media and fixatives were used for various cytology samples, if post-fixation in a different fixative was part of the process, which fixation times were used, and which method was used for processing the cytology sample into a CB (Supplementary information 1). The respondents were asked to specifically answer these questions for cytological samples from NSCLC patients that may had been tested for PD-L1 between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2018, corresponding with the study period used for extraction of data from the PALGA data set (see “Data source and data extraction”).
Data source and data extraction
In order to analyze the impact of fixation and CB methods on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity, data were extracted from PALGA, the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands. The PALGA registry contains all pathology records from all Dutch pathology laboratories since 1991 [19]. All pathology laboratories have given consent for the storage of their data by PALGA, and for the scientific use of these data. Patients can opt out of consenting to the use of their data for research purposes. Since this specific study had a national, non-interventional retrospective design and all data were analyzed anonymously, patient consent was waived. This study was approved by PALGA’s Scientific Council and Privacy Committee, and all data were handled according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Data on all NSCLC patients in the Netherlands with a mention of PD-L1 testing in their pathology report between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2018 were retrieved. We have reported on this previously in another manuscript [18], in which we assessed interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity in both histological and cytological material on a nationwide level. Patients with multiple primary lung tumors were excluded from the data set, because treatment of one of these tumors could potentially have influenced PD-L1 expression in the other tumor [20, 21]. For the current study, only the data on cytological specimens were used. Since information on fixation and CB method is not part of standard pathology reporting, the information from the survey was used to enrich the data from PALGA. In order to do so, the various methods described by the respondents were divided into categories within two variables, i.e. fixative and CB method. These variables were then added to the PALGA data set. In order to enable the linking of the information gathered from the survey to the data retrieved from PALGA, the survey was sent to laboratories through PALGA, ensuring that the laboratories taking part remained anonymous to the researchers.
From all pathology reports concerning cytological specimens with known fixation and CB method, the following data were extracted: age and sex of the patient, histologic subtype of the tumor, amount of PD-L1 tests performed, source of material for PD-L1 test(s), reported tumor proportion score (TPS), and number of tumor cells present (< 100 or ≥ 100), if reported.
Analysis of interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity in relation to fixation and CB methods
Equal to what we described in our previous paper [18], variation in PD-L1 positivity was studied by comparing the proportions of reported PD-L1 positive patients between the laboratories that performed PD-L1 testing. PD-L1 positivity was determined according to two clinically relevant cutoffs, i.e., ≥ 1% and ≥ 50%. Analysis of interlaboratory variation was performed for each of these cutoffs separately. Only cytology samples with known fixation and CB method were included. Furthermore, only patients from laboratories that had performed PD-L1 tests in ≥ 30 patients during the study period were included, and for each patient, only one PD-L1 test performed on a cytological sample was included. Patients with discordant results of multiple PD-L1 tests performed on cytological material were excluded, since it was impossible to determine which of the test results could be considered as the “true” result. This concerned results from multiple tests performed on the same tumor focus as well as results from tests on different foci of the same tumor process (e.g., primary tumor and metastasis). Patients with inconclusive test results only and patients with tests without a reported TPS were excluded as well.
Plots displaying interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity in cytological material were created. Information on fixative was incorporated in these plots by using colors to display the fixative that was used most in each laboratory. Some laboratories performed PD-L1 testing for both their own and external laboratories, and fixation and CB methods could also differ within one laboratory, which is why some laboratories performed PD-L1 testing on cytological material fixed in various fixatives. Whenever laboratories used two fixatives in a fairly even distribution (up to 65–35%), two colors were used.
Statistical analysis
Patient and sample characteristics were summarized using counts and proportions. Differences between PD-L1 positive and negative subgroups were tested by using a Pearson’s χ2 test for categorical variables and a t-test for continuous variables. Potential associations between PD-L1 positivity and fixative or CB method were assessed using univariable logistic regression analysis. PD-L1 positivity was determined using the 1% cutoff and the 50% cutoff, separately.
The mean PD-L1 positivity rate of all patients included was determined for both the 1% cutoff and the 50% cutoff. Differences in PD-L1 positivity rates between laboratories were displayed in funnel plots, which showed the mean PD-L1 positivity rate with its 95% confidence limits and the percentage of PD-L1 positive patients plotted against the total number of patients tested for each laboratory. All laboratories falling outside the 95% confidence limits were considered to differ significantly from the mean.
The PD-L1 positivity rates used in the funnel plots were adjusted for differences in patient and sample characteristics (i.e., case mix) by performing multivariable logistic regression analysis. Based on the multivariable regression model, case mix-adjusted positivity rates were determined by dividing the observed percentage of PD-L1 positive patients per laboratory by the expected percentage, followed by multiplying with the mean percentage of PD-L1 positivity. The predetermined variables that were included in the adjustment analyses were age, sex, histologic subtype, and source of material used for PD-L1 testing. Additional case mix-adjusted PD-L1 positivity rates were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis that also included the variables fixative and CB method. These positivity rates were then compared with the case mix-adjusted positivity rates of the same laboratories without the variables fixative and CB method. Furthermore, the likelihood ratio test (LRT) was used to compare the goodness of fit of both multivariable logistic regression models (with and without the variables fixative and CB method).
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.
Results
Nationwide variation in fixation and CB methods of cytology samples
We received responses from 28 (66.7%) of the 42 laboratories to that the questionnaire was sent to. From the responses, 19 different ways of processing cytology samples could be discerned. Figure 1 provides an overview of the various combinations of collection medium, fixative, post-fixation, and CB method, with the number of times each combination was used by a laboratory in the final column. Sometimes different processing methods were used within one laboratory, depending on the type of cytological material. This explains why the numbers in the final column add up to 37 instead of 28. Variation in mean fixation time ranged from 20 min to 36 h, with a mean of 12 h.
Formalin or Unifix, a substance also containing formaldehyde, was used most often in the various combinations of fixatives and CB methods employed by the different laboratories (12 out of 37 times, 32.4%). Alcohol fixation (methanol- or ethanol-based) followed by formalin fixation was used 11 of 37 times (29.7%). Seven (18.9%) of all 37 processing methods contained a step involving CytoRich Red fixation, a solution that contains both alcohols and formaldehyde. Finally, in 7 out of 37 cases (18.9%), the cytological material was fixed using CytoLyt and PreservCyt (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA), both methanol-based, without formalin post-fixation.
Four different CB methods were used, i.e., centrifugation of the cytology sample and processing the cell pellet into an FFPE CB, agar embedding, the Thermo Scientific or Shandon CB method (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA), and the Cellient-automated CB system (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA). Centrifugation and processing into an FFPE CB and the agar-based method were used most often (12 out of 37 times, 32.4%). The Cellient CB system and Thermo Scientific CB method were used in 8 (21.6%) and 5 (13.5%) out of 37 cases, respectively.
Patient selection process from the PALGA data set
Information on fixation methods used by the various laboratories was divided into four categories (formalin fixation, CytoRich Red fixation, alcohol (methanol or ethanol) fixation with formalin post-fixation, and CytoLyt/PreservCyt fixation (without formalin post-fixation)) and added to the PALGA data set. Similarly, information on CB methods used by the various laboratories was also divided into four categories (centrifugation and FFPE CB, agar-based CB, Thermo Scientific CB, and Cellient CB) and added to the PALGA data set.
The PALGA data set showed that during the study period, 10,625 PD-L1 tests were performed in 8725 patients with NSCLC in the Netherlands. Data from 42 laboratories were included, of which 32 performed PD-L1 testing on cytology samples. Of all tests, 2665 (25.1%) were performed on cytological material of 2300 patients. Based on the results from our survey, information on fixation and CB method could be added to the samples of 1784 patients, resulting in the exclusion of 516 patients. After this, 92 patients from laboratories that performed PD-L1 testing in < 30 patients were excluded. Finally, after the exclusion of patients with discordant results from multiple PD-L1 tests (n = 14), patients with inconclusive test results only (n = 216), and patients with tests with unknown TPS (n = 4), 1458 patients from 19 laboratories remained for analysis of interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity (Fig. 2). The patients with inconclusive test results only had a total of 259 tests performed, of which 195 (75.3%) were reported to have an insufficient amount of viable tumor cells (< 100). Characteristics of all included patients and their samples tested for PD-L1 are displayed in Table 1. Proportions significantly differed between PD-L1 positivity and negativity across sex, histologic subtype, fixative, and CB method for both cutoffs.
Analysis of the association between fixative and PD-L1 positivity
Within the different categories of the variable fixative, the mean PD-L1 positivity rate based on the 1% cutoff was highest in the samples fixed in formalin (59.7%). After this came CytoRich Red (53.5%) and alcohol fixation with formalin post-fixation (49.4%), followed by CytoLyt/PreservCyt fixation without formalin post-fixation (41.8%). At the 50% cutoff, the mean percentage of PD-L1 positive cases was 33.3% for all samples fixed in formalin. Mean PD-L1 positivity was 29.2% for samples fixed in CytoRich Red, 26.3% for samples fixed in alcohol with formalin post-fixation, and 23.9% for samples fixed in CytoLyt/PreservCyt (Supplementary Fig. 1a).
Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically significant association between fixative and PD-L1 positivity for both the 1% cutoff and the 50% cutoff (Table 2), with the odds of scoring PD-L1 as positive being significantly lower in samples fixed in CytoLyt/PreservCyt (without formalin post-fixation) or in alcohol with formalin post-fixation compared with samples fixed in formalin only. There was no significant difference in the odds of scoring PD-L1 as positive between samples fixed in CytoRich Red and those fixed in formalin.
Analysis of the association between CB method and PD-L1 positivity
The mean PD-L1 positivity rate at the 1% cutoff for samples that were centrifuged and processed into FFPE CBs was 52.5%. For the other categories, mean PD-L1 positivity rates were 59.3% (agar CBs), 52.4% (Thermo Scientific CBs), and 36.3% (Cellient CBs). At the 50% cutoff, the mean PD-L1 positivity was 29.2% for samples centrifuged and processed into FFPE CBs. Mean PD-L1 positivity was 33.5% for samples processed into agar CBs, 27.7% for samples processed into Thermo Scientific CBs, and 19.2% for samples processed into Cellient CBs (Supplementary Fig. 1b).
A statistically significant association was found between CB method and PD-L1 positivity for both cutoffs (Table 2). The odds of scoring PD-L1 as positive were significantly lower in samples processed into Cellient CBs in comparison to samples that were centrifuged and processed into FFPE CBs. At the 1% cutoff, the odds of PD-L1 positivity were significantly higher for samples processed into agar-based CBs than for those centrifuged and processed into FFPE CBs. No statistically significant differences in the odds of PD-L1 positivity were found between the Thermo Scientific Cytoblock method and centrifugation and processing into an FFPE CB.
Fixation and CB methods in relation to interlaboratory variation of PD-L1 positivity
The mean PD-L1 positivity rate of all included patients was 51.6% at the 1% cutoff and 28.5% at the 50% cutoff. When positivity rates without any case mix adjustment were plotted against the total number of PD-L1 tests for each laboratory and compared to the overall mean, eight (42.1%) laboratories differed significantly from the mean at the 1% cutoff and nine (47.4%) laboratories differed significantly from the mean at the 50% cutoff (data not shown). After case mix adjustment for sex, age, histologic subtype, and source of material, funnel plots showed eight (42.1%) laboratories differing significantly from the overall mean at both cutoffs (Fig. 3). Case mix adjustment with these variables thus resulted in a reduction of the number of laboratories differing significantly from the mean from nine to eight at the 50% cutoff. No reduction in the number of laboratories differing significantly from the mean was seen at the 1% cutoff. The case mix-adjusted positivity rates from the individual laboratories ranged from 26.0 to 72.4% at the 1% cutoff, and from 9.9 to 40.9% at the 50% cutoff.
When looking at Fig. 3a, attention is drawn to the seven laboratories that used formalin fixation for at least part of their samples (in blue). Five of these laboratories lie above the overall mean, with four laboratories falling outside the upper 95% confidence limit. In contrast, most of the laboratories that primarily used CytoLyt and PreservCyt fixation without formalin post-fixation (in red) lie below the overall mean, with one of the laboratories that fall far below the lower 95% confidence limit also using CytoLyt/PreservCyt fixation. The other laboratory falling below the lower 95% confidence limit mainly used combined alcohol and formalin fixation, but this fixation method was also used by two of the laboratories that lie above the upper 95% confidence limit. Hence, the mean PD-L1 positivity rate of all samples fixed in alcohol followed by formalin post-fixation lies much closer to the overall mean, while the mean of all samples fixed in CytoLyt/PreservCyt without formalin post-fixation lies further below the overall mean. Conversely, the mean of all samples fixed in formalin lies quite far above the overall mean. The differences between the laboratories that used different fixation methods are less apparent at the 50% cutoff (Fig. 3b), although a similar pattern can still be discerned.
When the variables fixative and CB method were included in the multivariable logistic regression models for case mix correction, the number of laboratories falling outside the 95% confidence limits decreased from eight (42.1%) to five (26.3%) at the 1% cutoff (Fig. 4a). Adding the variables fixative and CB method to the case mix correction analysis resulted in a maximum variation between PD-L1 positivity rates of 47.9% (34.4–82.3%). This was a slightly wider range than the range of PD-L1 positivity rates adjusted for case mix without fixative and CB method, which was 46.4%. This seems mainly driven by a single laboratory that went from falling within the 95% confidence limits when adjusted for case mix without the variables fixative and CB method, to falling far outside the upper 95% confidence limit when adjusted for case mix including fixative and CB method.
At the 50% cutoff, adjusting PD-L1 positivity rates for case mix with the inclusion of the variables fixative and CB method again resulted in a decrease of the number of laboratories differing significantly from the mean from eight (42.1%) to five (26.3%) (Fig. 4b). The PD-L1 positivity rates of the individual laboratories ranged from 14.9 to 55.9%, resulting in a maximum variation of 41.0%. This maximum variation was wider than the maximum variation of PD-L1 positivity rates adjusted for the case mix without the fixative and CB method (41.0% vs. 31.0%). Again, this seems mainly driven by the same outlier laboratory as at the 1% cutoff.
At both cutoffs, adding the variables fixative and CB method to the multivariable logistic regression model resulted in a lower log-likelihood value in comparison to the model without the variables fixative and CB method, indicating a better fit to the data of the extended model. The difference in fit between the models was statistically significant based on the LRT (p-value < 0.01).
Discussion
In this cohort study based on real-world data, the variation in fixation and CB processing of cytology samples by pathology laboratories in the Netherlands was assessed. We revealed that many differences exist in both the use of fixatives and of CB methods, sometimes including multiple methods within one laboratory. Correcting PD-L1 positivity rates of individual laboratories for differences in the use of fixative and CB method resulted in a reduction of the number of laboratories that differed significantly from the mean PD-L1 positivity. Moreover, the observed decrease in interlaboratory variation was considerably greater than the decrease that was seen when PD-L1 positivity rates were corrected for differences in patient and sample characteristics without the variables fixative and CB method.
First of all, the amount of different fixation and processing methods and reported combinations among the laboratories that responded to our survey is enormous: Within a total of 28 laboratories, 19 different combinations of fixation and processing cytological material into a CB could be discerned. These results are comparable to those of other studies that used surveys to assess interlaboratory variation in both fixation and CB methods, which also showed large amounts of variation in cytology processing methods between laboratories [8, 22,23,24].
Both methanol-based and ethanol-based fixatives have a potentially deleterious effect on PD-L1 immunostaining performed on CBs [15,16,17], with a risk of false-negative PD-L1 immunostaining results. Indeed, correcting for differences in cytology fixation and CB processing methods between laboratories resulted in a reduction in the number of laboratories differing significantly from the mean in PD-L1 positivity. Formalin post-fixation may reverse the negative effects of alcohol fixation to some degree [15], with some studies showing good concordance in PD-L1 positivity between histology and cytological specimens from the same tumor fixed in an alcohol-based fixative followed by formalin fixation [25,26,27]. It is unclear, however, what the maximum duration of alcohol fixation is after which formalin post-fixation is still effective, and what the most optimal formalin post-fixation time would be. CytoRich Red, containing both alcohols and formaldehyde, did not seem to have a negative effect on PD-L1 immunostaining in various studies [15, 26, 28]. Likewise, univariable logistic regression analyses in our study did not show a statistically significant difference in the odds of finding PD-L1 positivity between CytoRich Red fixation and formalin fixation, while the odds of scoring PD-L1 as positive were significantly lower in samples fixed in CytoLyt/PreservCyt without formalin post-fixation or in alcohol with formalin post-fixation compared with samples fixed in formalin.
It is possible that differences in the CB method also influence interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity, regardless of the fixation method. Yet, very few studies have been published that assessed the influence of the CB method on immunostaining independently of the fixation method. In a study by Lloyd et al. [17], cytology samples processed into CBs with the Cellient-automated CB system showed optimal PD-L1 staining results compared with CB preparation according to the plasma-thromboplastin method. However, the authors advise against the use of CytoLyt as a collection medium due to the poor performance of PD-L1 immunostaining in samples collected in CytoLyt. Remarkably, CytoLyt is the collection medium of choice recommended for use with the Cellient system by the manufacturer. In our study, nearly 75% of the Cellient processed samples were fixed in CytoLyt/PreservCyt, and the remainder were fixed in an alcohol-based fixative with formalin post-fixation. None of the Cellient processed samples were fixed in formalin only. All in all, based on the available literature, it is very likely that the influence of differences in cytology processing methods on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity can be attributed mostly to differences in fixation methods.
We have reported previously that a large degree of variation in PD-L1 positivity between laboratories is problematic. Indeed, this could result in patients receiving different PD-L1 test results depending on the pathology laboratory where their material is tested [18]. Thus, efforts should be taken to keep interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity to a minimum. Based on the current study, an important step to take would be to create more uniformity between laboratories in the way that cytology samples are fixed and processed, using a method that does not negatively influence immunostaining results. This desire for uniformity has been expressed by others [8, 29], too, and could prove beneficial not only to results from PD-L1 immunostaining but also to results from other immunohistochemical assays that show adverse effects of alcohol fixation, such as for progesterone receptor [30] and MIB1 [31]. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes specifically designed to assess immunocytochemistry could perhaps aid in uncovering possible technical issues and in promoting standardization [32]. Future studies should investigate which method is the preferred (combination of) cytology processing method(s) for PD-L1 testing.
Potentially, rigorous validation and optimization of immunostaining protocols that are used on cytology samples but have originally been validated on FFPE tissue samples could aid in diminishing variation as well. Unfortunately, it has been shown that validation and optimization of immunostaining protocols for cytology samples are not common practice [23, 24], even though organizations such as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommend that a sufficient number of cases should be tested to ensure that immunohistochemical assays achieve similar results when performed on cytological material compared to histological material [33]. No advice is given, however, on the criteria and number of specimens needed for validation, and it is stated that “separate validation of all markers on all potential cytologic specimens is generally not feasible” [33]. The type of material that should be used for validation may often not be clear either, or it may be difficult to collect enough material, especially when dealing with small cytology samples. On top of that, some laboratories receive cytological specimens from external laboratories for immunocytochemical testing, which may have been fixed and processed in a variety of ways. Moreover, with PD-L1 immunostaining, a decrease in staining intensity could result in false-negative staining results, but it is hard to determine what level of decrease in staining can still be accepted and what level would actually cause problems in clinical practice. All these factors may complicate the proper validation and optimization of PD-L1 immunohistochemical stains that are used on cytological specimens. On top of that, laboratories may use commercial assays for PD-L1 immunostaining, which use standardized protocols developed by the manufacturer that cannot simply be adjusted.
After correction for the case mix including variation in the fixative and CB method, the amount of interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity was still substantial at both cutoffs. Compared to histology, tissue architecture is disrupted in cytology samples, which can complicate the recognition of tumor cells. Also, it may be a lot harder to distinguish tumor cells from inflammatory cells, especially macrophages, which may lie adjacent to or intermixed with isolated tumor cells [34, 35]. The level of experience and training of the pathologists scoring PD-L1 immunostaining on cytology in a routine clinical pathology setting may not be the same in all laboratories, all the more so because scoring of PD-L1 on cytology requires adequate training in both cytopathology and PD-L1 scoring. Structural differences between laboratories could arise, for instance, when inflammatory cells are often mistaken for tumor cells. Moreover, small tissue samples can lead to an underestimation of PD-L1 expression [36], which probably also applies to cytology samples. In fact, it has been shown that PD-L1 staining results of CBs and resection specimens are more concordant when a greater number of tumor cells were present in the CB [37]. Perhaps laboratories that structurally receive cytological samples that contain more tumor cells, for instance, because multiple passes or bigger needles are used to collect material, have higher PD-L1 positivity rates based on cytology than other laboratories. Our study, however, does not provide the data to properly investigate this hypothesis.
Of note, in our study, an association was found between sex and PD-L1 expression, with PD-L1 positivity being more likely in samples from women than from men (Table 1). While similar results have been shown by others [38, 39], various other studies did not find any association between PD-L1 expression and sex [40,41,42,43,44,45] or found that PD-L1 was more likely to be positive in men than in women [46,47,48]. These studies, however, primarily used FFPE material, mostly from surgical resections or biopsies. Our study only included cytological samples, many of which were not fixed in formalin or embedded in paraffin, which might explain the differences in results. Similarly, while some studies did not find a statistically significant association between PD-L1 expression and sampling site [49, 50], comparable to our results (Table 1), others showed that pleural and nodal metastases were more likely to express PD-L1 than primary tumors [42]. Again, the difference in results could potentially be explained by the latter study using FFPE material which largely came from biopsies or surgical resections, while our study only used cytological material fixed and processed in a variety of ways. Moreover, the differences in proportions between PD-L1 positivity and negativity of the various characteristics in Table 1 were tested through univariate analysis, which does not account for potential confounding factors. Also, since we used a large cohort in our study, small and maybe even clinically insignificant differences might be statistically significant, whereas they might not have been in studies with smaller sample sizes. These factors should be taken into account when interpreting these results.
This study has some limitations. Most importantly, even though a considerable amount of laboratories responded to our survey, we did not receive answers from all laboratories. This resulted in the exclusion of 516 patients from the PALGA data set, for whom the fixative and CB method were unknown. Given the current variation in the fixation and CB methods, it is to be expected that the overall number of methods used would only be larger, potentially resulting in a larger baseline variation among laboratories to start with. This should be considered when interpreting the analyses of the influence of variation in fixation and CB processing on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity. Second, the respondents reported varying mean fixation times. Vigliar et al. [51] showed that formalin fixation time influences PD-L1 immunostaining results on CBs. This could be the case with other fixatives, too. Unfortunately, we did not know the fixation times for individual samples in the PALGA data set and, thus, could not incorporate information on fixation time in our analyses. Third, due to a large amount of variation in cytology processing methods, especially in fixation methods, it was quite difficult to divide these various methods into larger categories. In fact, if numbers had allowed to include all methods as they were, a better correction could have been performed. However, we do feel that the distribution that we used is compatible with the currently available literature. Finally, since our study is based on real-world pathology data, we were dependent on the way that pathologists report their findings. For instance, while it would have been interesting to include an analysis of TPS on a continuous scale, the fact that various laboratories only reported TPS in categories did not allow us to do so. Also, some potentially relevant information, such as information on previous treatment, is not regularly part of pathology reports, meaning that we could not correct for potential differences between laboratories within these areas. Regarding treatment status, however, in many patients, PD-L1 testing was performed on the initial diagnostic material, either at the time of diagnosis or at a later time. We also excluded patients with more than one primary lung tumor, to avoid including data from PD-L1 tests that might have been influenced by previous treatment. We therefore expect the number of patients in which PD-L1 testing was performed solely on material collected after administration of chemotherapy to be too small to influence our results in a significant way.
To conclude, this study shows that a lot of variation exists between laboratories in the methods used for fixation and CB processing of cytological samples. We have demonstrated that these differences influence interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity in NSCLC patients, with a decrease in the amount of variation when PD-L1 positivity rates are corrected for differences in fixation and CB methods. A high degree of variation in PD-L1 positivity between laboratories is problematic, because this will almost inevitably lead to patients receiving different courses of treatment depending on the laboratory where their cytological material is stained and scored for PD-L1. These results warrant the need for more research to determine the best methods of fixation and CB processing of cytology samples on which PD-L1 immunostaining is to be performed, and for harmonization of these methods between laboratories.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from PALGA, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of PALGA.
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V et al (2018) Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet 391(10125):1023–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3
Lu T, Yang X, Huang Y et al (2019) Trends in the incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with lung cancer in the last four decades. Cancer Manag Res 11:943–953. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S187317
Duma N, Santana-Davila R, Molina JR (2019) Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 94(8):1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.013
Planchard D, Popat S, Kerr K et al (2018) Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 29(Suppl 4):iv192–iv237. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy275
Pai-Scherf L, Blumenthal GM, Li H et al (2017) FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: first-line therapy and beyond. Oncologist 22(11):1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0078
Pentheroudakis G, Committee EG (2020) Recent eUpdate to the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines on early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Ann Oncol 31(9):1265–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.05.023
Crapanzano JP, Heymann JJ, Monaco S, Nassar A, Saqi A (2014) The state of cell block variation and satisfaction in the era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine. Cytojournal 11:7. https://doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.129187
Nambirajan A, Jain D (2018) Cell blocks in cytopathology: an update. Cytopathology 29(6):505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12627
Krogerus L, Kholova I (2018) Cell block in cytological diagnostics: review of preparatory techniques. Acta Cytol 62(4):237–243. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489769
Sauter JL, Grogg KL, Vrana JA, Law ME, Halvorson JL, Henry MR (2016) Young investigator challenge: validation and optimization of immunohistochemistry protocols for use on cellient cell block specimens. Cancer Cytopathol 124(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21660
Ireka Y, Agustina H, Aziz A, Hernowo BS, Suryanti S (2019) Comparison of fixation methods for preservation cytology specimens of cell block preparation using 10% neutral buffer formalin and 96% alcohol fixation in E-cadherin and Ki-67 immunohistochemical examination. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 7(19):3139–3144. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.452
Gruchy JR, Barnes PJ, Dakin Hache KA (2015) CytoLyt(R) fixation and decalcification pretreatments alter antigenicity in normal tissues compared with standard formalin fixation. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 23(4):297–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000082
Kruger AM, Stevens MW, Kerley KJ, Carter CD (2014) Comparison of the Cellient() automated cell block system and agar cell block method. Cytopathology 25(6):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12216
Koomen BM, van der Starre-Gaal J, Vonk JM et al (2021) Formalin fixation for optimal concordance of programmed death-ligand 1 immunostaining between cytologic and histologic specimens from patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cytopathol 129(4):304–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.22383
Koomen BM, Vreuls W, de Boer M et al (2021) False-negative programmed death-ligand 1 immunostaining in ethanol-fixed endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens of non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Histopathology 79(4):480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14373
Lloyd IE, Zhou W, Witt BL, Chadwick BE (2019) Characterization of PD-L1 Immunohistochemical expression in cell blocks with different specimen fixation and processing methods. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 27(2):107–113. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000572
Koomen BM, Voorham QJM, Epskamp-Kuijpers C et al (2021) Considerable interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity in a nationwide cohort of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 159:117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.07.012
Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G et al (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/971816
Sheng J, Fang W, Yu J et al (2016) Expression of programmed death ligand-1 on tumor cells varies pre and post chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci Rep 6:20090. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20090
Rojko L, Reiniger L, Teglasi V et al (2018) Chemotherapy treatment is associated with altered PD-L1 expression in lung cancer patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 144(7):1219–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-018-2642-4
Moriarty AT, Nayar R, Auger M et al (2014) Nongynecologic cytology practice patterns: a survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in nongynecologic cytopathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(7):885–889. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0680-CP
Srebotnik Kirbis I, Rodrigues Roque R, Bongiovanni M, Strojan Flezar M, Cochand-Priollet B (2020) Immunocytochemistry practices in European cytopathology laboratories-Review of European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) online survey results with best practice recommendations. Cancer Cytopathol 128(10):757–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.22311
Fischer AH, Schwartz MR, Moriarty AT et al (2014) Immunohistochemistry practices of cytopathology laboratories: a survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(9):1167–1172. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0259-CP
Lou SK, Ko HM, Kinoshita T et al (2020) Implementation of PD-L1 22C3 IHC pharmDxTM in cell block preparations of lung cancer: concordance with surgical resections and technical validation of CytoLyt(R) Prefixation. Acta Cytol 64(6):577–587. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508628
Gosney JR, Haragan A, Chadwick C et al (2020) Programmed death ligand 1 expression in EBUS aspirates of non-small cell lung cancer: is interpretation affected by type of fixation? Cancer Cytopathol 128(2):100–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.22216
Arriola AGP, Bashover E, Joseph C, Staerkel G, Wang WL, Roy-Chowdhuri S (2018) The usefulness of various cytologic specimen preparations for PD-L1 immunostaining in non-small cell lung carcinoma. J Am Soc Cytopathol 7(6):324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2018.07.005
Song SG, Lee J, Koh J, Kim S, Chung DH, Jeon YK (2020) Utility of PD-L1 immunocytochemistry using body-fluid cell blocks in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 48(4):291–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24379
Vigliar E, Malapelle U, Iaccarino A et al (2019) PD-L1 expression on routine samples of non-small cell lung cancer: results and critical issues from a 1-year experience of a centralised laboratory. J Clin Pathol 72(6):412–417. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2019-205732
Gorman BK, Kosarac O, Chakraborty S, Schwartz MR, Mody DR (2012) Comparison of breast carcinoma prognostic/predictive biomarkers on cell blocks obtained by various methods: cellient, formalin and thrombin. Acta Cytol 56(3):289–296. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337436
Buonocore DJ, Konno F, Jungbluth AA et al (2019) CytoLyt fixation significantly inhibits MIB1 immunoreactivity whereas alternative Ki-67 clone 30–9 is not susceptible to the inhibition: critical diagnostic implications. Cancer Cytopathol 127(10):643–649. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.22170
Kirbis IS, Maxwell P, Flezar MS, Miller K, Ibrahim M (2011) External quality control for immunocytochemistry on cytology samples: a review of UK NEQAS ICC (cytology module) results. Cytopathology 22(4):230–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00867.x
Fitzgibbons PL, Bradley LA, Fatheree LA et al (2014) Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(11):1432–1443. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0610-CP
Sinclair W, Kobalka P, Ren R et al (2021) Interobserver agreement in programmed cell death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry scoring in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma cytologic specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 49(2):219–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24651
Tejerina E, Garca Tobar L, Echeveste JI, de Andrea CE, Vigliar E, Lozano MD (2021) PD-L1 in cytological samples: a review and a practical approach. Front Med (Lausanne) 8:668612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.668612
Thunnissen E, Kerr KM, Dafni U et al (2020) Programmed death-ligand 1 expression influenced by tissue sample size. Scoring based on tissue microarrays’ and cross-validation with resections, in patients with, stage I-III, non-small cell lung carcinoma of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape cohort. Mod Pathol 33(5):792–801. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-019-0383-9
Dong Z, Liu Y, Jiang T et al (2020) Cell block as a surrogate for programmed death-ligand 1 staining testing in patients of non-small cell lung cancer. J Cancer 11(3):551–558. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.35810
Azuma K, Ota K, Kawahara A et al (2014) Association of PD-L1 overexpression with activating EGFR mutations in surgically resected nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 25(10):1935–1940. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu242
Ota K, Azuma K, Kawahara A et al (2015) Induction of PD-L1 expression by the EML4-ALK oncoprotein and downstream signaling pathways in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 21(17):4014–4021. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0016
Karatrasoglou EA, Chatziandreou I, Sakellariou S et al (2020) Association between PD-L1 expression and driver gene mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients: correlation with clinical data. Virchows Arch 477(2):207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-020-02756-1
Jain E, Sharma S, Aggarwal A et al (2021) PD-L1 expression and its clinicopathologic and genomic correlation in the non-small cell lung carcinoma patients: an Indian perspective. Pathol Res Pract 228:153497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2021.153497
Evans M, O’Sullivan B, Hughes F et al (2020) The clinicopathological and molecular associations of PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of a series of 10,005 cases tested with the 22C3 assay. Pathol Oncol Res 26(1):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-018-0469-6
Kato Y, Kashima J, Watanabe K et al (2018) Association between clinicopathological features and programmed death ligand 1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 38(2):1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12326
Holmes M, Mahar A, Lum T, Kao S, Cooper WA (2021) Real-world programmed death-ligand 1 prevalence rates in non-small cell lung cancer: correlation with clinicopathological features and tumour mutation status. J Clin Pathol 74(2):123–128. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206709
Sorensen SF, Zhou W, Dolled-Filhart M et al (2016) PD-L1 Expression and survival among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. Transl Oncol 9(1):64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2016.01.003
Li H, Xu Y, Wan B et al (2019) The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression assessed by immunohistochemistry in lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 50 studies with 11,383 patients. Transl Lung Cancer Res 8(4):429–449. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2019.08.04
Sun JM, Zhou W, Choi YL et al (2016) Prognostic significance of PD-L1 in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a large cohort study of surgically resected cases. J Thorac Oncol 11(7):1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.04.007
Pan Y, Zheng D, Li Y et al (2017) Unique distribution of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in East Asian non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 9(8):2579–2586. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.08.61
Mansour MSI, Hejny K, Johansson F et al (2021) Factors influencing concordance of PD-L1 expression between biopsies and cytological specimens in non-small cell lung cancer. Diagnostics (Basel) 11(10):1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11101927
Zhu Y, Lin S, Wang Y et al (2021) Study on PD-L1 expression in NSCLC patients and related influencing factors in the real world. Comput Math Methods Med 2021:3273347. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3273347
Vigliar E, Iaccarino A, Campione S et al (2020) PD-L1 expression in cell-blocks of non-small cell lung cancer: the impact of prolonged fixation. Diagn Cytopathol 48(7):595–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24439
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all laboratories that took part in this study. We also thank Chantal Epskamp-Kuijpers, Marion Visscher, Eeke Leerssen, and Jasmijn van Es for their help in extracting data from the PALGA data set.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Bregje Koomen: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing – original draft.
Mirthe de Boer: conceptualization, investigation, writing – review and editing.
Carmen van Dooijeweert: methodology, writing – review and editing.
Anne van Lindert: conceptualization, writing – review and editing.
Ivette Deckers: methodology, writing – review and editing.
Quirinus Voorham: resources, data curation, writing – review and editing.
Stefan Willems: conceptualization, methodology, funding acquisition, supervision, writing – review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
This work was funded with research grants from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Roche (grant numbers not applicable), received by BM Koomen and SM Willems, and paid to the institution. None of the grant suppliers was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. SM Willems also received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, all outside the submitted work and paid to the institution. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Koomen, B.M., de Boer, M., van Dooijeweert, C. et al. Nationwide differences in cytology fixation and processing methods and their impact on interlaboratory variation in PD-L1 positivity. Virchows Arch 482, 707–720 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-022-03446-w