NY-ESO-1 as a predictive and prognostic marker in NSCLC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17539 Background: Cancer-testis antigens (CTAgs) have previously been shown to be markers of poor prognosis and to be associated with chemoresistance in short interference RNA screens. In contradistinction, we recently reported the CTAg NY-ESO-1 predicted improved responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pathological stage IIIA NSCLC. Despite this, no significant survival benefit was seen in NY-ESO-1 positive (NY-ESO-1+) patients. Given that tissues available for staining in the neoadjuvant setting were limited, we investigated a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent curative surgery for pathological N2 disease. As some of these patients were operated on prior to the broad acceptance of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), half did not receive chemotherapy. We investigated NY-ESO-1 as a prognostic and/or predictive marker in these patients. Methods: Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues were reviewed and stained using standard methods for a panel of CTAgs including NY-ESO-1 by immunohistochemistry. Tumors were categorized as NY-ESO-1+ or NY-ESO-1-. Isolated DNA was subjected to mutation profiling using Sequenom’s MassArray platform. Molecular markers were correlated with clinicopathological features and survival. Results: NY-ESO-1 stained 26/104 (25%) samples, including 15 cases that received ACT and 11 that did not. NY-ESO-1+ tumors were enriched for squamous cell carcinomas over adenocarcinomas (12/29 vs. 8/57; p = 0.01). They also lacked EGFR mutants and were enriched for KRAS mutants amongst adenocarcinomas relative to NY-ESO-1- tumors (5/8 vs. 9/49; p=0.02). NY-ESO-1+ patients who did not receive ACT had significantly worse outcome than NY-ESO-1- patients who did not receive ACT (HR 2.66 1.2-5.86, p=0.01). Median survival favored NY-ESO-1+ patients who received chemotherapy (37.7 months) compared to NY-ESO-1- patients regardless of chemotherapy (28.2 ACT vs 15.7 No ACT; p= 0.25) and NY-ESO-1+ patients who did not receive ACT (7.75). Conclusions: In this dataset, NY-ESO-1 was poorly prognostic but also predictive for more favorable outcomes with chemotherapy. These data support our previous observation of increased responses to chemotherapy in NY-ESO-1+ N2 patients and warrant further study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".