To the Editor In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lu and colleagues1 provided an overview of the most common tissue-based biomarker approaches for predicting response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 (programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1) therapies and reported a higher diagnostic accuracy of multiplex immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence compared with PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, tumor mutational burden, or gene expression profiling alone. However, we have 2 points of concern related to the methodological aspects of this systematic review and meta-analysis.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Liu S, Niu W. Different Biomarker Modalities and Response to Anti–PD-1/PD-L1 Therapies. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(2):298–299. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5148
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.