Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37130627›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2023

Cross-cohort analysis identified an immune checkpoint-based signature to predict the clinical outcomes of neuroblastoma.

Liang Zeng, Hui Xu, Shu-Hua Li, Shuo-Yu Xu, Kai Chen, Liang-Jun Qin, Lei Miao, Fang Wang, Ling Deng, Feng-Hua Wang and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Integration of Bulk RNA Sequencing and Single-Cell Sequencing to Identify Prognostic Genes Associated With MCDRGs in Neuroblastoma.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. CD20Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Liang Zeng *Department of Pathology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China.
Hui Xu *Department of Pathology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4443-4404
Shu-Hua Li *Molecular Diagnosis and Gene Testing Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuo-Yu Xu *Department of General Surgery, Southern Medical University Nanfang Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Kai ChenDepartment of Pathology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China.
Liang-Jun QinDepartment of Pathology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China.
Lei MiaoGuangzhou Institute of Paediatrics, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Research in Structural Birth Defect Disease, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China.
Fang WangDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ling DengDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Feng-Hua WangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Le LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Sha FuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumour Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Cellular & Molecular Diagnostics Center, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Na LiuDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Ran WangDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China wanghy29@mail3.sysu.edu.cn liyingq1@sysucc.org.cn wangr55@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Ying-Qing LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China wanghy29@mail3.sysu.edu.cn liyingq1@sysucc.org.cn wangr55@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Hai-Yun WangDepartment of Pathology, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Child Health, National Children's Medical Center for South Central Region, Guangzhou, China wanghy29@mail3.sysu.edu.cn liyingq1@sysucc.org.cn wangr55@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-1385-0827
Sun Yat-sen University · CNGuangzhou Women and Children Medical Center · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuroblastoma (NB) places a substantial health burden on families worldwide. This study aimed to develop an immune checkpoint-based signature (ICS) based on the expression of immune checkpoints to better assess patient survival risk and potentially guide patient selection for immunotherapy of NB.

methodsImmunohistochemistry integrated with digital pathology was used to determine the expression levels of 9 immune checkpoints in 212 tumor tissues used as the discovery set. The GSE85047 dataset (n=272) was used as a validation set in this study. In the discovery set, the ICS was constructed using a random forest algorithm and confirmed in the validation set to predict overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Kaplan-Meier curves with a log-rank test were drawn to compare the survival differences. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was applied to calculate the area under the curve (AUC).

resultsSeven immune checkpoints, including PD-L1, B7-H3, IDO1, VISTA, T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain containing-3 (TIM-3), inducible costimulatory molecule (ICOS) and costimulatory molecule 40 (OX40), were identified as abnormally expressed in NB in the discovery set. OX40, B7-H3, ICOS and TIM-3 were eventually selected for the ICS model in the discovery set, and 89 patients with high risk had an inferior OS (HR 15.91, 95% CI 8.87 to 28.55, p<0.001) and EFS (HR 4.30, 95% CI 2.80 to 6.62, p<0.001). Furthermore, the prognostic value of the ICS was confirmed in the validation set (p<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that age and the ICS were independent risk factors for OS in the discovery set (HR 6.17, 95% CI 1.78 to 21.29 and HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.25, respectively). Furthermore, nomogram A combining the ICS and age demonstrated significantly better prognostic value than age alone in predicting the patients' 1-year, 3-year and 5-year OS in the discovery set (1 year: AUC, 0.891 (95% CI 0.797 to 0.985) vs 0.675 (95% CI 0.592 to 0.758); 3 years: 0.875 (95% CI 0.817 to 0.933) vs 0.701 (95% CI 0.645 to 0.758); 5 years: 0.898 (95% CI 0.851 to 0.940) vs 0.724 (95% CI 0.673 to 0.775), respectively), which was confirmed in the validation set.

conclusionsWe propose an ICS that significantly differentiates between low-risk and high-risk patients, which might add prognostic value to age and provide clues for immunotherapy in NB.

Indexed as

Hepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2NeuroblastomaArea Under CurveHumansImmunotherapyMultivariate AnalysisHepatitis A Virus Cellular Receptor 2neuroblastomatumor biomarkerstumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID37130627
PMCPMC10163522
OpenAlexW4367834989

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.