Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 7.
Published in final edited form as: J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Mar 2;16(4):686–696. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.12.026

Table 1:

Pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical aspects of PD-L1 testing stratified by region

Region North America Central & South America Europe Asia Oceania Africa and Middle East World
n=83 n=25 n=140 n=61 n=13 n=22 Comparison test n=344

PD-L1 testing status* n=83 n=20 n=139 n=59 n=13 n=20 p<0.0001 n=334
In house 62 (75%) 17 (85%) 134 (96%) 56 (95%) 13 (100%) 18 (90%) 300 (90%)
Send out 21 (25%) 3 (15%) 5 (4%) 3 (5%) 0 2 (10%) 34 (10%)

No. of sample types** n=83 n=20 n=138 n=59 n=13 n=19 p<0.0001 n=332
1 2 (3%) 5 (25%) 5 (4%) 5 (9%) 1 (8%) 6 (32%) 24 (7%)
2 11 (13% 11 (55%) 21 (15%) 22 (37%) 1 (8%) 1 (5%) 67 (20%)
3 or more 70 (84%) 4 (20%) 112 (81%) 32 (54%) 11 (84%) 12 (63%) 241 (73%)
Sample types used**
Biopsy 80 (96%) 20 (100%) 138 (100%) 57 (97%) 13 (100%) 16 (84%) p<0.0001 324 (98%)
Surgical 80 (96%) 15 (75%) 128 (91%) 55 (93%) 11 (85%) 16 (84%) p<0.0001 305 (92%)
Cell blocks 73 (88%) 4 (20%) 116 (84%) 32 (54%) (92%) 12 (63%) p<0.0001 249 (75%)
Cytology smear 7 (8.4%) 0 22 (16%) 4 (6.8%) 0 0 36 (11%)

Platform** n=57 n=19 n=133 n=54 n=13 n=18 p=0.07 n=294
Ventana 31 (54%) 14 (74%) 95 (71%) 42 (78%) 10 (77%) 9 (50%) p=0.10 201 (68%)
Dako 29 (51%) 10 (53%) 48 (36%) 35 (65%) 1 (8%) 10 (56%) p<0.0001 133 (45%)
Leica 13 (23%) 1 (5%) 23 (17%) 14 (26%) 4 (31%) 1 (6%) p=0.19 56 (19%)

External QA** n=59 n=16 n=134 n=56 n=13 n=18 p=0.54 n=296
No 8 (14%) 5 (31%) 23 (17%) 11 (20%) 1 (8%) 4 (22%) 52 (18%)
Yes 51 (86%) 11 (69%) 111 (83%) 45 (80%) 12 (92%) 14 (78%) 244 (82%)
If Yes,
Interlab validation 28 (47%) 6 (38%) 39 (29%) 29 (52%) 5 (38%) 7 (39%) p=0.04 114 (39%)
Formal external QA 34 (58%) 7 (44%) 97 (72%) 30 (54%) 10 (77%) 9 (50%) p=0.02 187 (63%)
Other 2 (3%) 1 (6%) 2 (1 %) 2 (4%) 2 (15%) 0 p=0.11 9 (3%)

Training** n=75 n=21 n=139 n=60 n=13 n=21 p<0.0001 n=329
No 23 (31%) 5 (36%) 9 (6%) 8 (13%) 0 7 (33%) 52 (16%)
Yes 52 (69%) 16 (64%) 130 (94%) 52 (87%) 13 (100%) 14 (67%) 277 (84%)
If yes, organized by p=0.02
Companies 28 (54%) 10 (63%) 91 (70%) 43 (83%) 11 (84%) 8 (58%) 191 (69%)
IASLC 5 (10%) 2 (12%) 11 (8%) 7 (13%) 1 (8%) 3 (21%) 29 (10%)
Other societies 19 (37%) 4 (25%) 28 (22%) 2 (4%) 1 (8%) 3 (21%) 57 (21%)

Guidelines used** n=73 n=21 n=140 n=59 n=13 n=20 p=0.07 n=326
No 4 (5%) 0 3 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (8%) 3 (15%) 12 (4%)
Yes 69 (95%) 21 (100%) 137 (98%) 58 (98%) 12 (92%) 17 (85%) 314 (96%)
If yes,
Local or national 53 (73%) 5 (24%) 95 (68%) 36 (61%) 7 (54%) 6 (30%) p<0.0001 202 (62%)
IASLC 26 (36%) 18 (86%) 78 (56%) 34 (58%) 9 (69%) 15 (75%) p<0.0001 180 (55%)

TAT** p=0.0002
Median 1 –2 days 2–3 days 1 –2 days 2–3 days 1–2 days 3–4 days 1 –2 days
Range [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5] [1 ; ≤5]

Standardized report** n=79 n=19 n=138 n=58 n=13 n=18 p=0.53
No 8 (10%) 2 (11%) 23 (17%) 6 (10%) 1 (8%) 4 (22%) 44 (14%)
Yes 71 (90%) 17 (89%) 115 (83%) 52 (90%) 12 (92%) 14 (78%) 281 (86%)

p†: Х2 or Fisher exact bilateral test; p‡: Mann-Whitney test; QA: quality assurance; TAT: turn-around time;

*

the numbers indicate participants whose lab offered clinical PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assessment;

**

the numbers indicate those of participants who responded to the specific question.