MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417539105 · doi:10.1136/jitc-2025-012205

Multi-omics analysis reveals differential benefits of immunotherapy±chemotherapy based on detailed smoking history in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

2025· article· en· W4417539105 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFoundation MedicineEMD SeronoGenentechNational Institutes of HealthMirati TherapeuticsRegeneron PharmaceuticalsGilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineAmgenPfizerSociety for Immunotherapy of CancerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsLung cancerSelection (genetic algorithm)Tumor microenvironmentSmoking historyCancerDifferential (mechanical device)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Despite immunotherapy±chemotherapy has transformed the therapeutic landscape for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), critical questions remain regarding how detailed smoking history affects the evolving treatment options and the underlying molecular mechanisms driving these effects. Methods We analyzed 4157 patients with advanced NSCLC who were treated with immunotherapy monotherapy (IO alone) (n=2768) or chemoimmunotherapy (chemo-IO) (n=1389) at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (2010–2023). Associations between detailed smoking history (status and cumulative pack-years) and clinical outcomes were assessed using multivariable analyses. First-line chemo-IO versus IO alone was compared in programmed death receptor ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) of ≥50% EGFR/ALK wild-type patients. Tobacco smoking-related mutational signature (TSMS) was inferred from the targeted next generation sequencing (NGS) panel. We investigated relationships between detailed smoking history and tumor genomics/transcriptomics, PD-L1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and circulating plasma proteomics. Results In patients receiving IO alone, both smoking status and intensity showed dose-dependent associations with improved response and survival outcomes. In contrast, among patients receiving chemo-IO, smoking history did not affect initial response but patients with active (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, p=0.01) and heavy tobacco use (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93, p=0.001) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS), and a trend toward improved overall survival (OS). Importantly, these associations remained independent of STK11 , KEAP1 , and KRAS co-mutation status. In patients with PD-L1 TPS of ≥50% lacking EGFR/ALK alterations, patients who do not smoke derived significant benefit from first-line chemo-IO versus IO alone with higher response rates (70.0% vs 23.9%, p=0.001), prolonged PFS (median PFS 9.5 vs 3.7 months, HR=0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95, p=0.04), and a trend toward prolonged OS, while patients who smoke showed comparable outcomes with either strategy. TSMS independently predicted improved outcomes of IO alone, even after tumor mutational burden (TMB) adjustment. Molecular analyses revealed associations between tobacco use and higher TMB, increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD8 + , PD-1 + , CD8 + PD-1 + , FOXP3 + ) and distinct plasma protein profiles involved in immune signaling pathways (CCL7, CXCL17, CDCP1, TNFRSF6B). Conclusions Detailed smoking history provides crucial insights for optimizing IO selection in advanced NSCLC through mechanistic alterations in both the tumor microenvironment and systemic plasma protein profiles.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of CancerSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207