<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Galsky MD</submitter><funding>NCI NIH HHS</funding><funding>F Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd</funding><pagination>476-486</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC11962399</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>13(4)</volume><pubmed_abstract>Testing for PD-L1 expression by IHC is used to predict immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) benefits but has performed inconsistently in urothelial cancer clinical trials. Different approaches are used for PD-L1 IHC. We analyzed paired PD-L1 IHC data on urothelial cancer samples using the SP142 and 22C3 assays from the phase III IMvigor130 trial and found discordant findings summarized by four phenotypes: PD-L1 positive by both assays, PD-L1 positive by the SP142 assay only, PD-L1 positive by the 22C3 assay only, and PD-L1 negative by both assays double negative. PD-L1 positive by both assays and PD-L1 positive by the SP142 assay only urothelial cancers were associated with more favorable ICB outcomes and increased dendritic cell (DC) infiltration. SP142 PD-L1 staining co-localized with DC-LAM</pubmed_abstract><journal>Cancer immunology research</journal><pubmed_title>Different PD-L1 Assays Reveal Distinct Immunobiology and Clinical Outcomes in Urothelial Cancer.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC11962399</pmcid><funding_grant_id>2016274</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>T32 CA078207</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Izadmehr S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kikuchi E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mellman I</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Koeppen H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>David JM</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bernhard S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Davis ID</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rishipathak D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Anker JF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Johnston RJ</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Grande E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gupta S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Van Elzen R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>De Santis M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Banchereau R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sanjabi S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gnjatic S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mariathasan S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Galsky MD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yuen K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bamias A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Peterson M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roels J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Arranz JA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Guan X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kockx M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Williams P</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Different PD-L1 Assays Reveal Distinct Immunobiology and Clinical Outcomes in Urothelial Cancer.</name><description>Testing for PD-L1 expression by IHC is used to predict immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) benefits but has performed inconsistently in urothelial cancer clinical trials. Different approaches are used for PD-L1 IHC. We analyzed paired PD-L1 IHC data on urothelial cancer samples using the SP142 and 22C3 assays from the phase III IMvigor130 trial and found discordant findings summarized by four phenotypes: PD-L1 positive by both assays, PD-L1 positive by the SP142 assay only, PD-L1 positive by the 22C3 assay only, and PD-L1 negative by both assays double negative. PD-L1 positive by both assays and PD-L1 positive by the SP142 assay only urothelial cancers were associated with more favorable ICB outcomes and increased dendritic cell (DC) infiltration. SP142 PD-L1 staining co-localized with DC-LAM</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Apr</publication><modification>2026-06-01T18:08:47.249Z</modification><creation>2025-07-01T03:05:28.645Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC11962399</accession><cross_references><pubmed>39853278</pubmed><doi>10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-24-0649</doi></cross_references></HashMap>