ArticleCancers2022
Genomic and Transcriptomic Predictors of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma Patients: A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Personalized Response Monitoring in Melanoma Patients Treated with Immunotherapy and Target Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Adaptive individualized gene pair signatures distinguishing melanoma and predicting response to immune checkpoint blockade.iScience · 2025Article
- Immunological Aspects of Cancer Cell Metabolism.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Informing immunotherapy with multi-omics driven machine learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- A decision support system to recommend appropriate therapy protocol for AML patients.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- An update on methods for detection of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in melanoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) became one of the most revolutionary cancer treatments, especially in melanoma. While they have been proven to prolong survival with lesser side effects compared to chemotherapy, the accurate prediction of response remains to be an unmet gap. Thus, we aim to identify accurate clinical and transcriptomic biomarkers for ICI response in melanoma. We also provide mechanistic insight into how high-performing markers impose their effect on the tumor microenvironment (TME). Clinical and transcriptomic data were retrieved from melanoma studies administering ICIs from cBioportal and GEO databases. Four machine learning models were developed using random-forest classification (RFC) entailing clinical and genomic features (RFC7), differentially expressed genes (DEGs, RFC-Seq), survival-related DEGs (RFC-Surv) and a combination model. The xCELL algorithm was used to investigate the TME. A total of 212 ICI-treated melanoma patients were identified. All models achieved a high area under the curve (AUC) and bootstrap estimate (RFC7: 0.71, 0.74; RFC-Seq: 0.87, 0.75; RFC-Surv: 0.76, 0.76, respectively). Tumor mutation burden, GSTA3, and VNN2 were the highest contributing features. Tumor infiltration analyses revealed a direct correlation between upregulated genes and CD8+, CD4+ T cells, and B cells and inversely correlated with myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Our findings confirmed the accuracy of several genomic, clinical, and transcriptomic-based RFC models, that could further support the use of TMB in predicting response to ICIs. Novel genes (GSTA3 and VNN2) were identified through RFC-seq and RFC-surv models that could serve as genomic biomarkers after robust validation.
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.