Chemokine expression predicts T cell-inflammation and improved survival with checkpoint inhibition across solid cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are highly effective in specific cancers where canonical markers of antitumor immunity are used for patient selection. Improved predictors of T cell-inflammation are needed to identify ICI-responsive tumor subsets in additional cancer types. We investigated associations of a 4-chemokine expression signature (c-Score: CCL4 , CCL5 , CXCL9 , CXCL10 ) with metrics of antitumor immunity across tumor types. Across cancer entities from The Cancer Genome Atlas, subgroups of tumors displayed high expression of the c-Score (c-Score hi ) with increased expression of immune checkpoint (IC) genes and transcriptional hallmarks of the cancer-immunity cycle. There was an incomplete association of the c-Score with high tumor mutation burden (TMB), with only 15% of c-Score hi tumors displaying ≥10 mutations per megabase. In a heterogeneous pan-cancer cohort of 82 patients, with advanced and previously treated solid cancers, c-Score hi tumors had a longer median time to progression (103 versus 72 days, P = 0.012) and overall survival (382 versus 196 days, P = 0.038) following ICI therapy initiation, compared to patients with low c-Score expression. We also found c-Score stratification to outperform TMB assignment for overall survival prediction (HR = 0.42 [0.22–0.79], P = 0.008 versus HR = 0.60 [0.29-1.27], P = 0.18, respectively). Assessment of the c-Score using the TIDE and PredictIO databases, which include ICI treatment outcomes from 10 tumor types, provided further support for the c-Score as a predictive ICI therapeutic biomarker. In summary, the c-Score identifies patients with hallmarks of T cell-inflammation and potential response to ICI treatment across cancer types, which is missed by TMB assignment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".