MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412535807 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2025.104545

Biomarkers of response and resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in breast cancer

2025· review· en· W4412535807 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Li, François Panet, Vittoria Barberi, Roberto Salgado, Mafalda Oliveira, Sherene Loi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsSanté Montérégie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerOncologyCancerImmune systemCancer researchInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been approved in subsets of patients with breast cancer (BC). Currently, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry is used as a biomarker of response for metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Other tumor-agnostic indications in metastatic BC include high tumor mutational burden and mismatch repair deficiency. In early TNBC, the ICI pembrolizumab is routinely added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yet no biomarker is currently available to predict response or resistance. Further, while luminal BC is often thought to be immune-depleted, preliminary efficacy data in early-stage disease suggests that the addition of ICIs to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can significantly improve rates of pathological complete response. However, not all patients will benefit from ICI treatment and it also comes with significant treatment toxicities. This review will describe biomarkers of response and resistance to ICIs in BC. These currently include tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, homologous recombination deficiency, CD274 gain or amplification, estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor expression, more precise tumoral immune characterization, gene expression analysis, and the T-cell receptor repertoire. Although still investigational, these approaches hold the potential to advance personalized medicine by tailoring the use of ICIs to BC patients who will benefit.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207