ArticleCancers2023
Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Pathologists' Assessment Compared to Immunoscore.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- From cell counts to cellular interactions: Cu-Cyto and the co-localization index as a spatial framework for the tumor immune microenvironment of rectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Estimating tumour immune infiltration: methodological convergence across histology and spatial technologies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Immunoprofiling at an Institutional Scale Reveals That High Numbers of Intratumoral CD8JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Immunoscore: redefining the landscape of colorectal cancer control and care.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Cancer immunotherapy in progress-an overview of the past 130 years.International immunology · 2025Review
- AI drives the assessment of lung cancer microenvironment composition.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
- Digital Pathology for Better Clinical Practice.Cancers · 2024Review
- Principles of risk assessment in colon cancer: immunity is key.Oncoimmunology · 2024Review
- Intra-tumoral lymphocyte scoring in colorectal cancer: improving prognostic utility and correlation with underlying cancer biology.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Immunoscore (IS) is a quantitative digital pathology assay that evaluates the immune response in cancer patients. This study reports on the reproducibility of pathologists' visual assessment of CD3+- and CD8+-stained colon tumors, compared to IS quantification.
methodsAn international group of expert pathologists evaluated 540 images from 270 randomly selected colon cancer (CC) cases. Concordance between pathologists' T-score, corresponding hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) slides, and the digital IS was evaluated for two- and three-category IS.
resultsNon-concordant T-scores were reported in more than 92% of cases. Disagreement between semi-quantitative visual assessment of T-score and the reference IS was observed in 91% and 96% of cases before and after training, respectively. Statistical analyses showed that the concordance index between pathologists and the digital IS was weak in two- and three-category IS, respectively. After training, 42% of cases had a change in T-score, but no improvement was observed with a Kappa of 0.465 and 0.374. For the 20% of patients around the cut points, no concordance was observed between pathologists and digital pathology analysis in both two- and three-category IS, before or after training (all Kappa < 0.12).
conclusionsThe standardized IS assay outperformed expert pathologists' T-score evaluation in the clinical setting. This study demonstrates that digital pathology, in particular digital IS, represents a novel generation of immune pathology tools for reproducible and quantitative assessment of tumor-infiltrated immune cell subtypes.
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.