Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) including programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, have recently emerged in advanced stage lung cancer as new standards of care. They are now indicated in first- line and second- or later-line treatment of metastatic or locally-advanced stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as for metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC), as single agent immunotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Four PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays have been established and validated in randomized trials, each for a specific ICI. They use different primary monoclonal antibodies, platforms and detection systems, as well as different scoring systems to assess PD-L1 expression either by tumor cells (TCs) and/or by infiltrating immune cells (ICs). Most studies have shown a close analytical performance of three of these clinically-validated standardized assays, but their use restricted to dedicated platforms, which are not all available in most laboratories, questions their applicability. In addition, the relative high costs of the assays have led to the development of in-house protocols in many pathology laboratories. Their use in clinical practice to assess the predictive value of PD-L1 expression for prescription of ICI raises the issue of their reliability and their validation as compared to standardized assays. This article discusses the main comparative studies available between LDT and assays, with clear evidence that LDT can reach a performance equivalent to the trial-validated assays. The requirements are an adequate validation as compared to an appropriate standard, and the participation to external quality assurance programs and training programs for PD-L1 IHC assessment for pathologists.