Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36394839›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2023

Association of Machine Learning-Based Assessment of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes on Standard Histologic Images With Outcomes of Immunotherapy in Patients With NSCLC.

Mehrdad Rakaee, Elio Adib, Biagio Ricciuti, Lynette M Sholl, Weiwei Shi, Joao V Alessi, Alessio Cortellini, Claudia A M Fulgenzi, Patrizia Viola, David J Pinato and 12 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

106 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Mehrdad RakaeeDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Elio AdibDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Biagio RicciutiLowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lynette M ShollDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Weiwei ShiDepartment of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joao V AlessiLowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alessio CortelliniDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Claudia A M FulgenziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Patrizia ViolaDepartment of Cellular Pathology, Imperial College London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
David J PinatoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sayed HashemiDepartment of Pulmonology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Idris BahceDepartment of Pulmonology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ilias HoudaDepartment of Pulmonology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ezgi B UlasDepartment of Pulmonology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Teodora RadonicDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Juha P VäyrynenCancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Elin RichardsenDepartment of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Simin JamalyDepartment of Medical Biology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Sigve AndersenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Tom DonnemDepartment of Clinical Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Mark M AwadLowe Center for Thoracic Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
David J KwiatkowskiDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USImperial College London · GBUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USOulu University Hospital · FIUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · ITUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NO

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Currently, predictive biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in lung cancer are limited. Identifying such biomarkers would be useful to refine patient selection and guide precision therapy. Objective: To develop a machine-learning (ML)-based tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) scoring approach, and to evaluate TIL association with clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter retrospective discovery-validation cohort study included 685 ICI-treated patients with NSCLC with median follow-up of 38.1 and 43.3 months for the discovery (n = 446) and validation (n = 239) cohorts, respectively. Patients were treated between February 2014 and September 2021. We developed an ML automated method to count tumor, stroma, and TIL cells in whole-slide hematoxylin-eosin-stained images of NSCLC tumors. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression were assessed separately, and clinical response to ICI therapy was determined by medical record review. Data analysis was performed from June 2021 to April 2022. Exposures: All patients received anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined by blinded medical record review. The area under curve (AUC) of TIL levels, TMB, and PD-L1 in predicting ICI response were calculated using ORR. Results: Overall, there were 248 (56%) women in the discovery cohort and 97 (41%) in the validation cohort. In a multivariable analysis, high TIL level (≥250 cells/mm2) was independently associated with ICI response in both the discovery (PFS: HR, 0.71; P = .006; OS: HR, 0.74; P = .03) and validation (PFS: HR = 0.80; P = .01; OS: HR = 0.75; P = .001) cohorts. Survival benefit was seen in both first- and subsequent-line ICI treatments in patients with NSCLC. In the discovery cohort, the combined models of TILs/PD-L1 or TMB/PD-L1 had additional specificity in differentiating ICI responders compared with PD-L1 alone. In the PD-L1 negative (<1%) subgroup, TIL levels had superior classification accuracy for ICI response (AUC = 0.77) compared with TMB (AUC = 0.65). Conclusions and Relevance: In these cohorts, TIL levels were robustly and independently associated with response to ICI treatment. Patient TIL assessment is relatively easily incorporated into the workflow of pathology laboratories at minimal additional cost, and may enhance precision therapy.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAlgorithmsB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyLymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingMaleRetrospective StudiesB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36394839
PMCPMC9673028
OpenAlexW4309183981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.