Pre-treatment peripheral blood immunophenotyping and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tumor immune infiltration and peripheral blood immune signatures have prognostic and predictive value in breast cancer. Whether distinct peripheral blood immune phenotypes are associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains understudied. Methods Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 126 breast cancer patients enrolled in a prospective clinical trial (NCT02022202) were analyzed using Cytometry by time-of-flight with a panel of 29 immune cell surface protein markers. Kruskal–Wallis tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences in immune cell subpopulations according to breast cancer subtype and response to NAC. Results There were 122 evaluable samples: 47 (38.5%) from patients with hormone receptor-positive, 39 (32%) triple-negative (TNBC), and 36 (29.5%) HER2-positive breast cancer. The relative abundances of pre-treatment peripheral blood T, B, myeloid, NK, and unclassified cells did not differ according to breast cancer subtype. In TNBC, higher pre-treatment myeloid cells were associated with lower pathologic complete response (pCR) rates. In hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, lower pre-treatment CD8 + naïve and CD4 + effector memory cells re-expressing CD45RA (T EMRA ) T cells were associated with more extensive residual disease after NAC. In HER2 + breast cancer, the peripheral blood immune phenotype did not differ according to NAC response. Conclusions Pre-treatment peripheral blood immune cell populations (myeloid in TNBC; CD8 + naïve T cells and CD4 + T EMRA cells in luminal breast cancer) were associated with response to NAC in early-stage TNBC and hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, but not in HER2 + breast cancer. Trial registration NCT02022202 . Registered 20 December 2013.
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".