75 Generalizability of potential biomarkers of response to CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade therapy in cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Multiple genomics-based biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibition have been reported or proposed, including tumor mutation/neoantigen frequency, PD-L1 expression, T cell receptor repertoire clonality, interferon gene signature expression, HLA expression, and others.1 Although genomics associations of response have been reported, the primary studies have used a variety of data generation and processing techniques. There is a need for data harmonization and assessment of generalizability of potential biomarkers across multiple datasets. Methods We acquired patient-level RNA sequencing FASTQ data files from 10 data sets reported in seven pan-cancer PD-1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoint inhibition trials with matched clinical annotations.2–7 We applied a common bioinformatics workflow for quality control, mapping to reference (STAR), generating gene expression matrices (SALMON), T cell receptor repertoire inference (MiXCR), extraction of immune gene signatures and immune subtypes,8 and differential gene expression analysis (DESeq2). We analyzed i) immunogenomics features proposed as biomarkers, and ii) gene expression signatures built from each trial for association with overall survival across the set of trials using univariable Cox proportional hazards regression. In all, we assessed 9 total immunogenomics features/signatures. P-values were adjusted for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Results Of the 9 immunogenomics features assessed, cytolytic activity score and expression of the Follicular Dendritic Cell Secreted Protein gene (FDCSP) were associated with survival in two of seven studies, respectively (adjusted p < 0.05) (figure 1). No proposed biomarkers were significantly associated with survival in more than two studies. The sets of genes significantly associated with clinical benefit across the studies were highly disjoint, with only three genes significant in three studies and thirteen genes significant in two studies (figure 2). No genes were significantly associated with clinical benefit in more than three of seven studies. Conclusions No proposed biomarkers were highly generalizable across studies. We expect that integrated modeling incorporating multiple immunogenomics features will be required to build a robust and generalizable biomarker for ICI response. Further work is needed to analyze determinants of response and clinical benefit. Acknowledgements We would like to thank SITC for funding for this work as part of the Sparkathon TimIOS collaborative project. References Zappasodi R, Wolchok JD, Merghoub T. Strategies for Predicting Response to Checkpoint Inhibitors. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 2018;13(5):383–95. Liu D, Schilling B, Liu D, Sucker A, Livingstone E, Jerby-Arnon L, Zimmer L, Gutzmer R, Satzger I, Loquai C, Grabbe S, Vokes N, Margolis CA, Conway J, He MX, Elmarakeby H, Dietlein F, Miao D, Tracy A, Gogas H, Goldinger SM, Utikal J, Blank CU, Rauschenberg R, von Bubnoff D, Krackhardt A, Weide B, Haferkamp S, Kiecker F, Izar B, Garraway L, Regev A, Flaherty K, Paschen A, Van Allen EM, Schadendorf D. Integrative molecular and clinical modeling of clinical outcomes to PD1 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma. Nat Med 2019;25(12):1916–27. Gide TN, Quek C, Menzies AM, Tasker AT, Shang P, Holst J, Madore J, Lim SY, Velickovic R, Wongchenko M, Yan Y, Lo S, Carlino MS, Guminski A, Saw RPM, Pang A, McGuire HM, Palendira U, Thompson JF, Rizos H, Silva IPD, Batten M, Scolyer RA, Long GV, Wilmott JS. distinct immune cell populations define response to anti-pd-1 monotherapy and Anti-PD-1/Anti-CTLA-4 Combined Therapy. Cancer Cell 2019;35(2):238–55 e6. Cloughesy TF, Mochizuki AY, Orpilla JR, Hugo W, Lee AH, Davidson TB, Wang AC, Ellingson BM, Rytlewski JA, Sanders CM, Kawaguchi ES, Du L, Li G, Yong WH, Gaffey SC, Cohen AL, Mellinghoff IK, Lee EQ, Reardon DA, O’Brien BJ, Butowski NA, Nghiemphu PL, Clarke JL, Arrillaga-Romany IC, Colman H, Kaley TJ, de Groot JF, Liau LM, Wen PY, Prins RM. Neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 immunotherapy promotes a survival benefit with intratumoral and systemic immune responses in recurrent glioblastoma. Nat Med. 2019;25(3):477–86. Riaz N, Havel JJ, Makarov V, Desrichard A, Urba WJ, Sims JS, Hodi FS, Martin-Algarra S, Mandal R, Sharfman WH, Bhatia S, Hwu WJ, Gajewski TF, Slingluff CL, Jr., Chowell D, Kendall SM, Chang H, Shah R, Kuo F, Morris LGT, Sidhom JW, Schneck JP, Horak CE, Weinhold N, Chan TA. Tumor and microenvironment evolution during immunotherapy with nivolumab. Cell 2017;171(4):934–49 e16. Hugo W, Zaretsky JM, Sun L, Song C, Moreno BH, Hu-Lieskovan S, Berent-Maoz B, Pang J, Chmielowski B, Cherry G, Seja E, Lomeli S, Kong X, Kelley MC, Sosman JA, Johnson DB, Ribas A, Lo RS. Genomic and transcriptomic features of response to anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma. Cell 2016;165(1):35–44. Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Balar AV, Necchi A, Dawson N, O’Donnell PH, Balmanoukian A, Loriot Y, Srinivas S, Retz MM, Grivas P, Joseph RW, Galsky MD, Fleming MT, Petrylak DP, Perez-Gracia JL, Burris HA, Castellano D, Canil C, Bellmunt J, Bajorin D, Nickles D, Bourgon R, Frampton GM, Cui N, Mariathasan S, Abidoye O, Fine GD, Dreicer R. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10031):1909–20. Thorsson V, Gibbs DL, Brown SD, Wolf D, Bortone DS, Ou Yang TH, Porta-Pardo E, Gao GF, Plaisier CL, Eddy JA, Ziv E, Culhane AC, Paull EO, Sivakumar IKA, Gentles AJ, Malhotra R, Farshidfar F, Colaprico A, Parker JS, Mose LE, Vo NS, Liu J, Liu Y, Rader J, Dhankani V, Reynolds SM, Bowlby R, Califano A, Cherniack AD, Anastassiou D, Bedognetti D, Mokrab Y, Newman AM, Rao A, Chen K, Krasnitz A, Hu H, Malta TM, Noushmehr H, Pedamallu CS, Bullman S, Ojesina AI, Lamb A, Zhou W, Shen H, Choueiri TK, Weinstein JN, Guinney J, Saltz J, Holt RA, Rabkin CS, Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Lazar AJ, Serody JS, Demicco EG, Disis ML, Vincent BG, Shmulevich I. The Immune Landscape of Cancer. Immunity 2018;48(4):812–30e14.
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 | 0.029 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".