Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Validation of multiplex immunofluorescence and digital image analysis for programmed death-ligand 1 expression and immune cell assessment in non-small cell lung cancer: comparison with conventional immunohistochemistry
  1. Jianghua Wu1,2,
  2. Luning Mao1,
  3. Wei Sun1,
  4. Xin Yang1,
  5. Haiyue Wang1,
  6. Xinying Liu1,
  7. Kaiwen Chi1,
  8. Xiaozheng Huang1,
  9. Dongmei Lin1
  1. 1Department of Pathology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China
  2. 2Department of Pathology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital; National Clinical Research Center of Cancer; Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin; Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Tianjin, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Dongmei Lin, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China; lindm3{at}163.com

Abstract

Aims This study aimed to validate the application of combined multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) and digital image analysis (DIA) in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues for the quantitative assessment of programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) and immune cells (ICs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods Fifty resected samples of NSCLC were sequentially stained with a DNA-tagged mIF (panel including PD-L1, CKpan, CD8, CD68 and 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI)) and conventional immunohistochemistry (cIHC). The assessment of cell density and consistency of tumour proportion score (TPS) via DIA were compared with those by pathologists.

Results A strong correlation in the cell population of immune markers was obtained between mIF and cIHC (for PD-L1: R=0.9304, CKpan: R=0.8231, CD8: R=0.9314 and CD68: R=0.8366) within 95% limits of agreement. The continuous TPS calculated using mIF was highly consistent with the IHC staining results which were evaluated by pathologists (R=0.9362). However, in the comparison of TPS using interval variables, a poor agreement was obtained at a cut-off of 1% (κ=0.197), whereas excellent agreement was achieved at cut-offs of 50% (κ=0.908) and 5% (κ=0.823). DIA on mIF showed that PD-L1 commonly colocalised with CD68+ macrophages and CD8+ cytotoxic cells were closer to PD-L1-/CK+ tumour cells (TCs) than to PD-L1+/CK+ TCs in spatial distribution.

Conclusions A combination of mIF and DIA is useful for the quantification of PD-L1 expression and IC populations in NSCLC. Further validation of TPS at a cut-off of 1% and assay harmonisation is essential for translating this method in a diagnostic setting.

  • lung neoplasms
  • biomarkers
  • tumor
  • immunohistochemistry

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Runjan Chetty.

  • JW and LM contributed equally.

  • Contributors JW and LM contributed equally to image analysis, data statistics, manuscript writing and participated in the experimental design. WS and XY scanned the slides for multiplex staining and verified PD-L1 scoring. HW, XL, KC and XH prepared the slides and performed multiplex immunofluorescence staining. DL conceived the study, participated in its design and coordination and helped draft and edit the manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82003155 and 81871860), the Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2020-2-1025) and Innovation Fund for Outstanding Doctoral Candidates of Peking University Health Science Centre (JW).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.