MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386121561 · doi:10.3892/ol.2023.14028

Prognostic relevance of tumor‑infiltrating lymphocytes in residual tumor tissue from patients with triple‑negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

2023· review· en· W4386121561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bo Cao, Ziran Zhang, Chaoxian Wang, Xiang Lv

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Letters · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriple-negative breast cancerHazard ratioBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineTumor-infiltrating lymphocytesChemotherapyMeta-analysisRegimenConfidence intervalCochrane LibraryAdjuvant therapyNeoadjuvant therapyCancerImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Further adjuvant chemotherapy treatment can provide benefits to certain patients with triple‑negative breast cancer (TNBC) that fail to achieve pathological complete response (pCR) after the administration of a neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimen. However, biomarkers suitable for identifying patients likely to experience poor prognostic outcomes after undergoing additional adjuvant chemotherapy are currently lacking. Accordingly, the present meta‑analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between tumor‑infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) or TIL subtypes (CD4+ or CD8+) in residual tumor (RT) tissue following NAC and TNBC patient prognosis. Relevant studies published through March 2023 were identified in Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science databases. After excluding irrelevant studies, data were extracted from the remaining reports, while study quality was analyzed with the Newcastle‑Ottawa Scale. Subsequent analyses were performed with Stata 14.0 and Review Manager 5.3. In total, seven relevant studies incorporating 1,202 patients were identified, all of which were retrospective cohort studies. Pooled analyses demonstrated that those patients exhibiting higher levels of RT TIL infiltration following NAC exhibited significantly improved recurrence‑free, metastasis‑free and event‑free survival (RFS/MFS/EFS) compared with patients with lower RT TIL infiltration levels, together with an improved distant recurrence‑free interval (DRFI) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.39‑0.69; P<0.00001]. In addition, patients exhibiting high RT TIL infiltration exhibited improved overall survival (OS) and breast cancer‑specific survival (BCSS; HR=0.49; 95% CI=0.38‑0.65; P<0.00001). Additional subgroup analyses revealed that patients with higher TIL infiltration levels or TIL subtype (CD4+ or CD8+) infiltration exhibited improved RFS/MFS/EFS/DRFI as compared with patients with lower levels of overall TIL or TIL subtype (CD4+ or CD8+) infiltration in RT tissue (HR=0.35, 95% CI=0.20‑0.59, P<0.0001; HR=0.49, 95% CI=0.33‑0.71, P=0.0002). Consistently, the OS/BCSS of patients exhibiting high levels of overall TIL or TIL subtype (CD4+ or CD8+) infiltration was increased compared with patients with lower levels of such infiltration (HR=0.33, 95% CI=0.19‑0.59, P=0.0002; HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41‑0.76, P=0.0002). These data thus demonstrate that levels of overall TIL infiltration or infiltration by CD4+ or CD8+ TILs in RT following NAC can be used as a biomarker to reliably predict prognostic outcomes in patients with TNBC, in addition to highlighting possible targets that may guide the further immunotherapeutic management of these patients.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.030
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology LettersSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207