ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
An antigen processing and presentation signature for prognostic evaluation and immunotherapy selection in advanced gastric cancer.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking biomarker strategy in gastric cancer immunotherapy: from tumor to host.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Immune modulation in gastric cancer: from macrophage polarization to immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- TRP channel expression patterns define molecular subtypes, prognosis, and therapeutic targets in gastric cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Gastric cancer prognosis: unveiling autophagy-related signatures and immune infiltrates.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Immunotherapy and Cancer: The Multi-Omics Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Construction of a nomogram with IrAE and clinic character to predict the survival of advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma patients undergoing anti-PD-1 treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Targeting MHC-I molecules for cancer: function, mechanism, and therapeutic prospects.Molecular cancer · 2023Review
- Predictive Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Gastric Cancer: Current Status and Emerging Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Cellular dynamics in tumour microenvironment along with lung cancer progression underscore spatial and evolutionary heterogeneity of neutrophil.Clinical and translational medicine · 2023Article
- Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastric cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to propose a signature based on genes associated with antigen processing and presentation (APscore) to predict prognosis and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced gastric cancer (aGC). Background: How antigen presentation-related genes affected the immunotherapy response and whether they could predict the clinical outcomes of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in aGC remain largely unknown. Methods: In this study, an aGC cohort (Kim cohort, RNAseq, N=45) treated by ICIs, and 467 aGC patients from seven cohorts were conducted to investigate the value of the APscore predicting the prognosis and response to ICIs. Subsequently, the associations of the APscore with the tumor microenvironment (TME), molecular characteristics, clinical features, and somatic mutation variants in aGC were assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the APscore was analyzed to estimate response to ICIs. Cox regression or Log-rank test was used to estimate the prognosis of aGC patients. Results: The APscore constructed by principal component analysis algorithms was an effective predictive biomarker of the response to ICIs in the Kim cohort and 467 aGC patients (Kim: AUC =0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.00; 467 aGC: AUC =0.69, 95% CI: 0.63-0.74). The APscore also was a prognostic biomarker in 467 aGC patients (HR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.21-2.46). Inhibitory immunity, decreased TMB and low stromal scores were observed in the high APscore group, while activation of immunity, increased TMB, and high stromal scores were observed in the low APscore group. Next, we evaluated the value of several central genes in predicting the prognosis and response to ICIs in aGC patients, and verified them using immunogenic, transcriptomic, genomic, and multi-omics methods. Lastly, a predictive model built successfully discriminated patients with vs. without immunotherapy response and predicted the survival of aGC patients. Conclusions: The APscore was a new biomarker for identifying high-risk aGC patients and patients with responses to ICIs. Exploration of the APscore and hub genes in multi-omics GC data may guide treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.