4.7 Article

Genopathomic profiling identifies signatures for immunotherapy response of lung adenocarcinoma via confounder-aware representation learning

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105382

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91959126, 8210071009]
  2. Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [20XD1403000, 21Y11913400, 21YF1438200]
  3. Clinical Research Foundation of Shanghai Hospital Development Center [SHDC2020CR3047B]
  4. Clinical Research Foundation of ShangHai Pulmonary Hospital [FK1937]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We proposed a biomarker system called PITER that utilizes histopathological and genetic characteristics to identify candidates for immunotherapy and has shown potential in identifying lung adenocarcinoma patients with a good response to treatment.
Immunotherapy shows durable response but only in a subset of patients, and test for predictive biomarkers requires procedures in addition to routine workflow. We proposed a confounder-aware representation learning-based system, geno-pathomic biomarker for immunotherapy response (PITER), that uses only diag-nosis-acquired hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained pathological slides by leveraging histopathological and genetic characteristics to identify candidates for immuno-therapy. PITER was generated and tested with three datasets containing 1944 slides of 1239 patients. PITER was found to be a useful biomarker to identify pa-tients of lung adenocarcinoma with both favorable progression-free and overall survival in the immunotherapy cohort (p < 0.05). PITER was significantly associ-ated with pathways involved in active cell division and a more immune activating microenvironment, which indicated the biological basis in identifying patients with favorable outcome of immunotherapy. Thus, PITER may be a potential biomarker to identify patients of lung adenocarcinoma with a good response to immunotherapy, and potentially provide precise treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据