MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Plasma extracellular vesicles as biomarkers of primary versus acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients (pts) with solid tumors.

2025· article· en· W4410802876 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Strum, Diego de Miguel‐Pérez, Sofia Genta, Sam Saibil, Marcus O. Butler, Aaron R. Hansen, Lawson Eng, Lillian L. Siu, Christian Rolfo, Anna Spreafico

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracellular vesiclesCancer researchImmune systemImmune checkpointOncologyInternal medicineImmunologyImmunotherapyCell biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2551 Background: Plasma extracellular vesicles (pEVs) have emerged as promising biomarkers in the field of oncology. They can be obtained through minimally invasive methods, and hold the potential to help differentiate the clinically relevant subgroups of primary (PR) vs acquired resistance (AR) to ICI treatments. We hypothesized that individual pEV-derived protein cargo, or combinations thereof, associate with PR vs AR to ICI. Methods: A cohort of patients was derived from the Immune Resistance Interrogation Study (IRIS; NCT04243720), with plasma collected at the time of progression on ICI in advanced or adjuvant settings (n = 69; n = 44 primary resistance [PR], n = 25 acquired resistance [AR]). Plasma-derived extracellular vesicles (pEVs) were isolated using serial ultracentrifugation and characterized per ISEV guidelines. All samples were analyzed using OLink Immuno-Oncology proteomics to evaluate 92 proteins. Statistical analyses included the Mann–Whitney U test, binary logistic regression, and log-rank tests. Primary and acquired resistance were defined according to trial protocol. Results: A total of 57 out of 69 samples (n = 37 PR, n = 20 AR) generated evaluable proteomics data. Of the 92 proteins analyzed, 11 were significantly overexpressed in AR compared to PR (ADGRG1, CD28, FGF2, IL10, IL12RB1, IL2, IL33, IL4, MCP3, PD-L2, PTN) (p < 0.05), with IL10 and IL33 showing the strongest associations (p< 0.01). When stratified by cancer type, 9/11 proteins were overexpressed in AR vs PR among melanoma pts (n = 39; ADGRG1, CD28, FGF2, IL10, IL33, IL4, MCP3, PD-L2, PTN) (p < 0.05), whereas only IL12RB1 (p < 0.01) was overexpressed in HNSCC pts (n = 16). Analysis of 5 proteins most strongly associated with AR (IL10, IL33, IL4, MCP3, CD28) yielded a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 95% for AR vs PR, with a positive and negative predictive value of 88% and 85%, respectively; AUC 0.853 (p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.742-0.963). Conclusions: In summary, 11 pEV-derived proteins from blood samples at progression on ICI independently statistically associated with AR vs PR, and a combination of 5 of them generated a highly accurate predictive model for AR. Immuno-modulatory cytokines IL10 and IL33 held the strongest associations, known to activate signaling cascades implicated in ICI resistance through the JAK-STAT and NF-Kappa-B/MAPK pathways, respectively. Differentially expressed proteins may signify distinct mechanisms of ICI escape. Despite requiring validation, our results highlight the potential of pEV-derived proteins as predictive biomarkers for ICI resistance in solid tumors. Future studies of pEV proteomics in the pre-treatment setting, as well as exploring other cargo such as RNA, may provide additional insights into the biology of resistance, and discover minimally invasive clinically relevant biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT04243720 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207