ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2026
Longitudinal evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte scoring using automated region of interest registration in breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are prognostic biomarkers in breast cancer (BC), particularly in HER2-positive and triple-negative subtypes. Assessment follows the international guidelines, in which pathologists evaluate whole hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides while integrating representative regions of the invasive tumor. However, manual region selection can be labor-intensive, subjective, and may introduce variability, particularly across consecutive tissue sections. Automated region of interest (ROI) registration may mitigate this limitation, yet its impact on longitudinal TIL scoring has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we introduce three ROI registration strategies (direct, intermediate, and serial with/without quality control) and present an automated framework validated for consistent TIL scoring and clinical relevance in predicting relapse.
methodsWe analyzed 104 invasive BC cases, each with 12 consecutive H&E slides. A pathologist annotated ROIs on both the first and twelfth slides. We registered these ROIs using the proposed strategies. We then evaluated them with performance metrics, including Intersection over Union (IoU), Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), failure rate, and execution time. Two pathologists scored TILs on manual and automated ROIs. We assessed longitudinal consistency between the first manual ROI and the twelfth slide's corresponding ROIs. We also tested whether the association between TIL score and patient relapse outcomes was preserved.
resultsThe direct registration strategy achieved the highest geometric accuracy (mean IoU = 0.650, DSC = 0.769), with < 1% failure rate and ∼5.8 s execution time. TIL scores for both manual and automated ROIs closely matched (P = 0.84), showing strong agreement (Spearman's ρ = 0.923, ICC = 0.936, CCC = 0.915, Cohen's κ = 0.786). Longitudinal analyses showed no significant variability across distant sections (P = 0.79 and P = 0.62). TIL concentrations differed significantly between patients with and without relapse, and this association was preserved on both the first and twelfth slides (P < 0.05).
conclusionsWe present the first automated framework for longitudinal ROI registration to support TIL scoring in BC. By reducing manual effort and variability, the framework supports scalable evaluation of immune biomarkers across tissue depth while preserving clinically relevant signals, supporting precision immuno-oncology applications.
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.