Usage Information
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Previously, we demonstrated that changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are promising biomarkers for early response prediction (ERP) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). In this study, we investigated the value of whole-blood immunotranscriptomics for ERP-ICI and integrated both biomarkers into a multimodal model to boost accuracy. METHODS. Blood samples of 93 patients were collected at baseline and after 2–6 weeks of ICI for ctDNA (n = 88) and immunotranscriptome (n = 79) analyses. ctDNA changes were dichotomized into increase or no increase, the latter including patients with undetectable ctDNA. For RNA model development, the cohort was split into discovery (n = 29), test (n = 29), and validation sets (n = 21). Finally, RNA- and ctDNA-based predictions were integrated in a multimodal model. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as progression-free survival beyond 6 months. RESULTS. Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) of ctDNA increase for predicting non-CB (N-CB) was 59% and 92%, respectively. Immunotranscriptome analysis revealed upregulation of T cell activation, proliferation, and interferon signaling during treatment in the CB group, in contrast with N-CB patients. Based on these differences, a 10-gene RNA model was generated, reaching an SN and SP of 73% and 79%, respectively, in the test and 67% and 67% in the validation set for predicting N-CB. Multimodal model integration led to superior performance, with an SN and SP of 79% and 100%, respectively, in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION. The combination of whole-blood immunotranscriptome and ctDNA in a multimodal model showed promise for ERP-ICI in mUC and accurately identified patients with N-CB. FUNDING. Eurostars grant E! 114908 - PRECISE, Paul Speth Foundation (Bullseye project).
Authors
Sandra van Wilpe, Davide Croci, Sara S. Fonseca Costa, Iris B.A.W. te Paske, Sofie H. Tolmeijer, Jolique van Ipenburg, Leonie I. Kroeze, Simona Pavan, Sylvain Monnier-Benoit, Guido Coccia, Noushin Hadadi, Irma M. Oving, Tineke J. Smilde, Theo van Voorthuizen, Marieke Berends, Mira D. Franken, Marjolijn J.L. Ligtenberg, Sahar Hosseinian Ehrensberger, Laura Ciarloni, Pedro Romero, Niven Mehra
Usage data is cumulative from January 2025 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 3,264 | 201 |
| 569 | 39 | |
| Figure | 559 | 0 |
| Table | 66 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 375 | 27 |
| Citation downloads | 208 | 0 |
| Totals | 5,041 | 267 |
| Total Views | 5,308 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
