Tumor Copy Number Alteration Burden as a Predictor for Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade across Different Cancer Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) benefits only a subset of advanced cancer patients, and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy response are needed. Recently, copy number alteration (CNA) burden has been proposed to predict ICB resistance. We assessed this finding using the publicly accessible data for 1661 ICB-treated patients whose tumors were profiled by MSK-IMPACT, an approved targeted assay in clinical care. We tested the hypothesis that the continuous increase in CNA burden is associated with poor overall survival following ICB. In addition, we hypothesized that the combinatorial biomarkers of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and CNA burden would better stratify patients for immune status and ICB response. Of the 1661 cases, 79% (n = 1307) were treated with anti PD-1/PD-L1 and the remaining 21% (n = 354) with anti CTLA-4 or the combination of both. In a multivariate analysis, increase in CNA burden was associated with poor overall survival [HR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.01–2.30), p = 0.04]. The combination of biomarkers TMB and CNA burden stratified patients into four clinically distinct subsets among which “LowTMB/HighCNA” showed the worst survival (p < 0.0001). The four patient subsets had unique CNA profiles and enriched pathways, which could predict transcriptional and phenotypic effects related to immune signaling and CD8+ T-cell abundance in the tumor microenvironment. CNA burden was associated with poor overall survival in patients receiving ICB and could improve patient stratification when incorporated with TMB. These findings may guide patient selection for immunotherapy or alternative strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".