Search

Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) reflect antitumour immunity. Their evaluation of histopathology specimens is influenced by several factors and is subject to issues of reproducibility. ONEST (Observers Needed to Evaluate Subjective Tests) helps in determining the number of observers that would be sufficient for the reliable estimation of inter-observer agreement of TIL categorisation. This has not been explored previously in relation to TILs. ONEST analyses, using an open-source software developed by the first author, were performed on TIL quantification in breast cancers taken from two previous studies. These were one reproducibility study involving 49 breast cancers, 23 in the first circulation and 14 pathologists in the second circulation, and one study involving 100 cases and 9 pathologists. In addition to the estimates of the number of observers required, other factors influencing the results of ONEST were examined. The analyses reveal that between six and nine observers (range 2–11) are most commonly needed to give a robust estimate of reproducibility. In addition, the number and experience of observers, the distribution of values around or away from the extremes, and outliers in the classification also influence the results. Due to the simplicity and the potentially relevant information it may give, we propose ONEST to be a part of new reproducibility analyses.

Stromal tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are a strong prognostic marker in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Consistency scoring sTILs is good and was excellent when an internet-based scoring aid developed by the TIL-WG was used to score cases in a reproducibility study. This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of sTILs assessment using this scoring aid in cases from routine practice and to explore the potential of the tool to overcome variability in scoring. Twenty-three breast pathologists scored sTILs in digitized slides of 49 TNBC biopsies using the scoring aid. Subsequently, fields of view (FOV) from each case were selected by one pathologist and scored by the group using the tool. Inter-observer agreement was good for absolute sTILs (ICC 0.634, 95% CI 0.539–0.735, p < 0.001) but was poor to fair using binary cutpoints. sTILs heterogeneity was the main contributor to disagreement. When pathologists scored the same FOV from each case, inter-observer agreement was excellent for absolute sTILs (ICC 0.798, 95% CI 0.727–0.864, p < 0.001) and good for the 20% (ICC 0.657, 95% CI 0.561–0.756, p < 0.001) and 40% (ICC 0.644, 95% CI 0.546–0.745, p < 0.001) cutpoints. However, there was a wide range of scores for many cases. Reproducibility scoring sTILs is good when the scoring aid is used. Heterogeneity is the main contributor to variance and will need to be overcome for analytic validity to be achieved.