ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Inflammatory biomarker-based prognostic model for immunotherapy outcomes in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional predictive biomarkers, including programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutational burden testing, fail to predict immunotherapy efficacy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/m CC), highlighting the need for accessible and dynamically evaluable indicators. Objective: This study aimed to develop an inflammatory biomarker-based prediction model to identify patients with advanced CC who may benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Methods: A total of 263 patients with r/m CC receiving immunotherapy were randomly divided into training (70%, n = 185) and validation (30%, n = 78) cohorts. The maximum log-rank test was used to determine optimal cutoff values for pretreatment inflammatory markers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index); posttreatment markers were stratified by comparison with baseline levels. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was applied for feature selection, and the selected variables were incorporated into a Cox proportional hazards model to establish the prognostic model. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, concordance indices, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. Results: Optimal cutoff values for pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were 2.82, 243.41, 0.39, and 580.10, respectively. The LASSO-Cox model showed strong predictive performance. Calibration curves confirmed consistency between predicted and observed overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Time-dependent ROC curves yielded training set area under the ROC curve values (1-, 2-, and 3-year) of 0.700, 0.740, and 0.759 (OS) and 0.732, 0.835, and 0.757 (PFS), respectively, as well as validation set area under the ROC curve values of 0.715, 0.771, and 0.803 (OS) and 0.732, 0.835, and 0.757 (PFS), respectively. Decision curve analysis demonstrated stable net clinical benefit. A nomogram was developed, with Kaplan-Meier analysis showing poorer OS or PFS in high-risk patients stratified by the nomogram. Conclusion: The inflammatory biomarker-based prognostic model predicts immunotherapy outcomes in patients with r/m CC, providing reliable clinical guidance for treatment decision-making.
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.