Table 1.
Nine strategies used to assess CD8 counts
| Sampling strategy | N | Mean area (mm2) ± 95 % CI | Discordant classification versus whole tumor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Above or below median (%) | Tertiles (%) | Quartiles (%) | ||||
| A | Whole tumor | 23 | 47.8 ± 18.9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B | Representative areas (6 mm2) | 23 | 4.7 ± 0.01 | 17 | 26 | 35 |
| C | CTS | 23 | 3.0 ± 0.2 | 17 | 13 | 26 |
| D | DLA | 20 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 30 | 40 | 55 |
| E | Invasive margin | 22 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 27 | 36 | 41 |
| F | A random 1-mm-diameter area | 23 | 0.8 ± 0.02 | 26 | 17 | 70 |
| G | 4 random 1-mm-diameter areas | 23 | 3.0 ± 0.2 | 17 | 22 | 48 |
| H | Random20 % of the tumor | 23 | 3.1 ± 0.4 | 9 | 0 | 26 |
| I | Random 10 × 1 mm sample | 23 | 8.4 ± 0.9 | 0 | 17 | 26 |
Summary of the areas assessed (mean ± 95 % CI) and the N available in each strategy. Also shown are the rates of discordant classification of CD8 densities obtained from the different sampling strategies in comparison with those obtained by assessing the whole tumor with respect to their median, tertile and quartile cutoffs. CTS central tumor sampling, DLA dense lymphoid aggregate