MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characteristics associated with spatially resolved immune landscapes in triple-negative breast cancer in the FinXX trial and Mayo Clinic cohort.

2023· article· en· W4379284260 on OpenAlexaff
Saranya Chumsri, Jodi M. Carter, Yaohua Ma, Douglas Hinerfeld, Heather Ann Brauer, Sarah Warren, Heikki Joensuu, Edith A. Perez, Roberto A. Leon‐Ferre, David M. Zahrieh, David W. Hillman, Judy C. Boughey, James N. Ingle, Krishna R. Kalari, Fergus J. Couch, Matthew P. Goetz, Keith L. Knutson, E. Aubrey Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancerMedicineImmune systemBreast cancerTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesCD8CohortOncologyStromal cellInternal medicineCancer researchImmunologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

581 Background: Several studies have established the crucial role of preexisting immune response measured by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Emerging studies showed that not only the number of TILs but also the location of TILs is as critical. There are 3 distinct immune landscapes described based on the locations of TILs, namely immune enriched (IN), immune excluded (IE), and immune desert (ID), which are associated with outcomes in TNBC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Here we evaluated characteristics associated with each immune landscape. Methods: NanoString IO360, Digital Spatial Profiling (DSP), and CosMx, a spatial multi-omics single-cell imaging platform, were used. DSP was used to quantify 39 immune-related proteins in stromal and tumor-enriched segments from 44 TNBC samples from the FinXX trial (NCT00114816) and 276 samples from the Mayo Clinic (MC) TNBC cohort (Leon-Ferre BCRT 2018). CosMx was performed in 75 samples from the MC TNBC cohort. First, tumors with TIL quantified by H&E ≤ 30% were classified as ID. The rest of the tumors were categorized according to the intratumoral CD8 protein expression by DSP, with IE having intratumoral CD8 in the lower median and IN having intratumoral CD8 in the upper median. Differential expression listed as log fold change (FC) was estimated from the linear mixed model with significance defined as two-sided p < 0.05. Results: Using DSP in the FinXX trial, intratumoral and stromal higher HLA-DR (FC 1.68, p = 0.001), B2M (FC 0.8, p = 0.005), CD4 (FC 0.74, p = 0.01), and CD40 (FC 1.56, p = 0.001) were associated with IN compared to ID. When comparing IE and IN, higher intratumoral CD11c (FC 0.97, p = 0.01) and stromal CD4 (FC 0.89, p = 0.047), CD20 (FC 0.85, p = 0.016), CD40 (FC 0.95, p = 0.045), and CD27 (FC 0.84, p = 0.024) were associated with IN. Similar findings were observed in the MC cohort. Moreover, intratumoral NY-ESO-1 expression (FC 0.55, p = 0.03) was associated with IN. Using GSEA with IO360 in the FinXX trial, PI3K-Akt signaling was associated with ID compared to IN (p = 0.01). We further evaluated the differential gene expression in a spatially resolved manner using CosMx with single-cell sequencing in the MC cohort. Expressions of MHC class I and class II in tumor cells, including HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DRA, HLA-DRB1, HLA-DPA1, and HLA-E, were associated with IN compared to ID and IE. Conclusions: Using an in-depth analysis with spatially defined context, we identified characteristics associated with distinct immune landscapes in TNBC. Our study highlights the potential future implications of intratumoral MHC expression, CD40, and PI3K-AKT as biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Clinical trial information: NCT00114816 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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