MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Immunoscore to provide prognostic information in low- (T1-3N1) and high-risk (T4 or N2) subsets of stage III colon carcinoma patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX in a phase III trial (NCCTG N0147; Alliance).

2018· article· en· W2795389053 on OpenAlexaff
Frank A. Sinicrope, Qian Shi, Fabienne Hermitte, Erica N. Heying, Al B. Benson, Sharlene Gill, Richard M. Goldberg, Morton S. Kahlenberg, Suresh Nair, Anthony F. Shields, Daniel J. Sargent, Jérôme Galon, Steven R. Alberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFOLFOXInternal medicineOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Colorectal cancerOxaliplatinConfidence intervalHazard ratioProportional hazards modelAdjuvantGastroenterologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

614 Background: A consensus interpretation of the IDEA colon cancer study results suggested that risk categories based on T/N stage grouping be used to guide decision-making for duration (3 vs 6 months) of adjuvant FOLFOX or CapeOX chemotherapy. Given the prognostic potential of immune biomarkers, we examined the immunoscore and individual T and B lymphocyte markers in low and high risk T/N subsets of stage III colon carcinoma patients (N=600) treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Methods: Immunoscore (CD3+, CD8+) and individual T-cell and CD20+ B-cell immunostain densities in central tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) of FFPE sections were quantified by image analysis. A predetermined immunoscore categorization was used [high (2-4) vs low (0-1)]. Individual markers were analyzed by backwards selection wherein CD3+ IM was most robust for prognosis and an optimized cutoff was then determined. Associations with disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for age, T/N stage, sidedness, KRAS/BRAF, and DNA mismatch repair. Results: In low and high risk T/N patient subsets, the immunoscore and CD3+ IM were each significantly discriminant for prognosis. Among low risk (T1-3N1) patients, a high vs low immunoscore was associated with a 91% vs 77% 3-year DFS [HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.95, adjusted (adj) P= 0.026]. Among high risk (T4 or N2) patients, a high vs low immunoscore was associated with a 68% vs 54% 3-year DFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.98, Padj= 0.034]. Similarly, a high vs low intratumoral CD3+ density at the invasive margin (IM) was significantly associated with prognosis in low risk [HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21- 0.66), Padj< 0.0003] and in high risk [HR 0.47, 95% CI, 0.27- 0.80), Padj< 0.0028] patient subsets. Conclusions: Immunoscore and CD3+ IM were shown to prognostically stratify FOLFOX-treated patients within both low and high risk T/N subsets. These data underscore limitations of the T/N risk classification for adjuvant treatment decisions in stage III patients, and demonstrate the ability of T-cell markers to enhance prognostication to guide clinical decision-making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→