ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2026
Artificial intelligence-based tumour infiltrating lymphocyte quantification in patients with triple-negative breast cancer: an independent validation study.
Article in The Lancet. 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
40 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a robust prognostic marker in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI)-derived computational tools assessing TILs could improve efficiency, but require independent validation against clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the prognostic performance of AI-derived TIL scores with pathologist-scored TILs in a large, prospectively collected dataset pooled from randomised controlled trials.
methodsCATALINA was an independent, external validation study using prospectively collected long-term clinical outcome data pooled from seven randomised clinical trials conducted at multiple sites. We independently evaluated two previously validated AI pipelines that generate five computationally assessed tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (cTIL) scores by masked, independent deployment of locked models. cTIL scores were correlated with the mean of the pathologist-scored stromal TILs (sTILs) in 220 digitised haematoxylin and eosin whole slide images in a cohort of patients with early-stage triple-negative or HER-2 positive breast cancer, previously scored by trained pathologists in a TIL-reproducibility study. Prognostic performance was assessed in a separate cohort of patients with early triple-negative breast cancer pooled from seven prospective, randomised adjuvant trials. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for clinicopathological factors and study heterogeneity assessed associations of cTIL score and sTIL score with invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival. 5-year discrimination was estimated using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
findingsIndividual data were collated from 1759 patients, of whom 1356 had complete clinicopathological data, pathologist sTIL scores, and cTIL scores available. Modest correlation (r 0·375-0·473) was observed between cTIL scores and the mean pathologist sTIL score. Both sTIL and cTIL were independently associated with 5-year invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival after adjustment for clinicopathological factors (hazard ratio for invasive disease-free survival was 0·73 [95% CI 0·66-0·82]; q<0·0001, distant disease-free survival was 0·70 [0·61-0·79]; q<0·0001, and overall survival was 0·72 [0·63-0·82]; q<0·0001 for sTIL scores and 0·80 [0·73-0·89]; q<0·0001, 0·77 [0·69-0·86]; q<0·0001, and 0·79 [0·70-0·88]; q=0·0002, respectively, for percentage_lymphocyte scores). In models adjusted for clinicopathological variables and sTIL score, cTIL score did not maintain a statistically significant prognostic association. Both sTIL and cTIL scores improved the 5-year AUC over clinicopathological variables alone, while cTIL score did not significantly further improve AUC when combined with clinicopathological variables and sTIL score.
interpretationTwo cTIL models deployed entirely without retraining or modification provided statistically significant prognostic information and improved risk discrimination compared with clinicopathological variables alone in this large, platform-based, independent validation study. Although cTIL score did not incrementally improve prognostication compared with models combining clinicopathological variables with sTIL score, these findings support the application of cTILs as a reproducible prognostic biomarker, particularly in settings where routine or widespread pathologist assessment is unavailable.
fundingBreast Cancer Research Foundation (USA).
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.