ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Virtual patient analysis identifies strategies to improve the performance of predictive biomarkers for PD-1 blockade.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) show variable responses to PD-1 inhibition. Efficient patient selection by predictive biomarkers would be desirable, but is hindered by the limited performance of existing biomarkers. Here, we leveraged in-silico patient cohorts generated using a quantitative systems pharmacology model of metastatic TNBC, informed by transcriptomic and clinical data, to explore potential ways to improve patient selection. We tested 90 biomarker candidates, including various cellular and molecular species, by a cutoff-based biomarker testing algorithm combined with machine learning-based feature selection. Combinations of pre-treatment biomarkers improved the specificity compared to single biomarkers at the cost of reduced sensitivity. On the other hand, early on-treatment biomarkers, such as the relative change in tumor diameter from baseline measured at two weeks after treatment initiation, achieved remarkably higher sensitivity and specificity. Further, blood-based biomarkers had a comparable ability to tumor- or lymph node-based biomarkers in identifying a subset of responders, potentially suggesting a less invasive way for patient selection.
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.