Clinical-genomic determinants of immune checkpoint blockade response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDRecurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is generally an incurable disease, with patients experiencing median survival of under 10 months and significant morbidity. While immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) drugs are effective in approximately 20% of patients, the remaining experience limited clinical benefit and are exposed to potential adverse effects and financial costs. Clinically approved biomarkers, such as tumor mutational burden (TMB), have a modest predictive value in HNSCC.METHODSWe analyzed clinical and genomic features, generated using whole-exome sequencing, in 133 ICB-treated patients with R/M HNSCC, of whom 69 had virus-associated and 64 had non-virus-associated tumors.RESULTSHierarchical clustering of genomic data revealed 6 molecular subtypes characterized by a wide range of objective response rates and survival after ICB therapy. The prognostic importance of these 6 subtypes was validated in an external cohort. A random forest-based predictive model, using several clinical and genomic features, predicted progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and response with greater accuracy than did a model based on TMB alone. Recursive partitioning analysis identified 3 features (systemic inflammatory response index, TMB, and smoking signature) that classified patients into risk groups with accurate discrimination of PFS and OS.CONCLUSIONThese findings shed light on the immunogenomic characteristics of HNSCC tumors that drive differential responses to ICB and identify a clinical-genomic classifier that outperformed the current clinically approved biomarker of TMB. This validated predictive tool may help with clinical risk stratification in patients with R/M HNSCC for whom ICB is being considered.FUNDINGFundación Alfonso Martín Escudero, NIH R01 DE027738, US Department of Defense CA210784, The Geoffrey Beene Cancer Research Center, The MSKCC Population Science Research Program, the Jayme Flowers Fund, the Sebastian Nativo Fund, and the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".