The Landscape of CEACAM5 Expression by Immunohistochemistry in NSCLC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 (CEACAM5) is a target of antibody-drug conjugate therapy for NSCLC. High expression of CEACAM5 has been reported in approximately 25% of patients with lung adenocarcinoma. However, CEACAM5 expression has not been systematically examined in a real-world and large patient population with NSCLC. There are also limited data on the prognostic impact of CEACAM5 protein expression. Methods: We assessed CEACAM5 protein expression by immunohistochemistry in two separate cohorts of patients with NSCLC to include both routine clinical biopsy and resection specimens, using the anti-CEACAM5 clone 769 antibody assay protocol and scoring scheme for the tusamitamab ravtansine clinical trials. Expression levels were categorized as high (≥50% tumor cells at ≥2+ intensity), moderate (1%-49% tumor cells at ≥2+ intensity), and negative (0/1+ intensity) and scored independently by three thoracic pathologists. Interrater reliability was determined by Kendall's coefficient of concordance and Fleiss' kappa. Association with PD-L1 and driver mutation was calculated by Fisher exact or chi-square test. Correlation with recurrence-free survival and overall survival was determined by log-rank tests. Results: mutations. There was no prognostic effect of CEACAM5 expression on recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Conclusions: Our data revealed that 18% of routinely diagnosed clinical NSCLC samples had high CEACAM5 expression by immunohistochemistry, and its expression was not associated with oncogenic driver mutations or patient prognosis in a predominantly early stage NSCLC cohort.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".