4.7 Article

Quantification of PD-L1 and PD-1 expression on tumor and immune cells in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using non-enzymatic tissue dissociation and flow cytometry

Journal

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
Volume 65, Issue 11, Pages 1317-1323

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-016-1889-3

Keywords

PD-L1; Non-small cell lung cancer; Immune cells; PD-1; Cell cycle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report a truly quantitative technology for PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In addition, we present a non-enzymatic technology that creates a cell suspension from fresh tumor tissue so that either fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fresh tissue can be used in this assay. Non-enzymatic tissue homogenization (IncellPREP; IncellDx, Menlo Park, California) was performed on 4-mm punch biopsies. An FNA was taken from the same tumor to create matched sample sets. Cells were labeled with antibodies directed against CD45, PD-1, and PD-L1 and then stained with DAPI to identify intact, single cells, and to analyze cell cycle. Comparing the IncellPREP homogenization and FNA demonstrated a strong correlation (r (2) - 0.8) for expression of PD-L1. We compared PD-L1 expression by flow cytometry using a 1 % cutoff for positivity in the tumor cell population and a 1 % cutoff of cells with at least 1+ intensity in immunohistochemically stained tissue sections as positive. Ten of 12 lung tumor samples were concordant while 2 were discordant. PD-L1 expression by flow cytometry varied widely (1.2-89.4 %) even in the positive concordant cases. In addition, PD-L1 expression in the aneuploid tumor population did not necessarily agree with the expression in the diploid tumor population. Fine, unequivocal quantification of PD-L1 on tumor and immune cells in NSCLC may allow for better prediction of response to therapies. The present study also offers a technology that can create a universal sample type from either FNA or fresh tissue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available