ReviewJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2026
Artificial intelligence in cancer immunotherapy: current trends in predicting response and personalizing treatment.
Review in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) can transform cancer immunotherapy by enabling more accurate prediction of treatment responses, the discovery of specific biomarkers, and the development of personalised treatment plans. Traditional single-marker biomarkers (PD-L1, TMB, MSI) lack consistency across tumour types and cannot be used to assess tumour heterogeneity or the dynamic tumour microenvironment (TME). This review synthesises developments in multimodal AI models that combine genomics, transcriptomics, radiomics, digital pathology (pathomics), circulating biomarkers, and clinical evidence to create composite predictive signatures with significantly better discriminatory value. AUCs over 0.8 have been seen in a few retrospective studies with deep learning and ensemble models on whole-slide images, CT/MRI/PET radiomics, spatial and single-cell omics, and multi-omics fusion models, but prospective and multicentre validation is scarce, and external validation often shows deterioration in performance. AI is also used to enhance the translational pipelines of adoptive cell therapies (e.g., CAR-T) by improving patient selection, manufacturing (e.g., digital twins), and early toxicity prediction (e.g., CRS, ICANS). Nevertheless, clinical implementation remains hindered by data heterogeneity, bias, poor longitudinal validation, limited reproducibility, and a lack of transparency in most models, even though prospective, multicenter validation and explainable AI are crucial for clinician trust and regulatory acceptance. New systems such as federated learning, foundation models, spatial omics, digital twins, and wearable monitoring represent paths to generalizable, privacy-preserving, and actionable systems in clinical practice. To achieve the potential of AI, the generation of data will need to be standardized, reporting must be transparent, interdisciplinary, and regulatory frameworks must be strengthened focusing on the practical use of AI and patient safety. By taking these steps, AI could be shifted to prospective clinical decision support, which uses AI to meaningfully enhance personalization and outcomes in cancer immunotherapy based on a retrospective research tool.
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.