Back

AI-detected tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for predicting outcomes in anti-PD1 based treated melanoma.

Schuiveling, M.; Van Duin, I. A. J.; Ter Maat, L. S.; van den Weerd, J.; Verheijden, R. J.; van den Berkmortel, F.; Blank, C. U.; Breimer, G.; Burgers, F. H.; Boers-Sonderen, M. J.; van den Eertwegh, A. J. M.; de Groot, J. W.; Haanen, J. B. A. G.; Hospers, G. A. P.; Kapiteijn, E.; Piersma, D.; Vreugdenhil, G.; Westgeest, H.; Schrader, A. M. R.; Pluim, J.; van Diest, P. J.; Veta, M.; Suijkerbuijk, K. P. M.; Blokx, W. A. M.

2025-05-29 oncology
10.1101/2025.05.28.25328410 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceEasy and accessible biomarkers to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI)-treated melanoma are limited. ObjectiveTo evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) detected tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) on pretreatment melanoma metastases as a biomarker for response and survival in ICI-treated patients. DesignMulticenter cohort study including patients with advanced melanoma treated with first-line anti-PD1 {+/-} anti-CTLA4 between 2016 and 2023. Median follow-up was 36.3 months. Setting11 melanoma treatment centers in the Netherlands. Participants1,202 patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma. ExposureAll patients received first-line anti-PD1 {+/-} anti-CTLA4. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)The percentage of TILs inside manually annotated tumor area in H&E stained pretreatment metastases was determined using the Hover-NeXt model trained and evaluated on an independent melanoma dataset containing 166,718 pathologist-verified manually annotated cells. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlation with manual TILs, scored according to the guidelines stated by the immune-oncology working group, was evaluated with Spearman correlation coefficients. Logistic regression and Cox proportional regression were conducted, adjusted for age, sex, disease stage, ICI type, BRAF status, brain metastases, LDH level, and performance status. ResultsMetastatic melanoma specimens were available for 1,202 patients, of whom 423 received combination therapy. Median TIL percentage was 9.9% (range 0.3% - 69.4%). A 10% increase in TILs was associated with increased ORR (adjusted OR 1.40 [95% 1.23-1.59]), PFS (adjusted HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.79 - 0.92]) and OS (adjusted HR 0.83 [95% CI 0.76 - 0.91]. Results were consistent for both patients treated with anti-PD1 monotherapy and combination treatment with anti-PD1 plus anti-CTLA4. When comparing manual TIL scoring with AI-detected TILs, associations with response and survival were consistently stronger for AI-detected TILs. Conclusions and RelevanceIn patients with advanced melanoma, higher levels of AI-detected TILs on pre-treatment H&E slides were independently associated with improved ICI response and survival. Given the accessibility of TIL scoring on routine histology, TILs may serve as a predictive biomarker for ICI outcomes. To facilitate broader validation, the Hover-NeXt architecture and model weights are publicly available. Key pointsQuestion: What is the predictive value of artificial intelligence-detected tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) for clinical outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line immune checkpoint inhibition? Findings: In this multicenter cohort of 1202 patients, TILs in pretreatment metastases were quantified using a melanoma-specific publicly available AI model trained on an independent dataset. A 10% increase was associated with response (aOR 1.40 [95% CI 1.23-1.59]), progression-free survival (aHR 0.85 [95% CI 0.79-0.92]), and overall survival (aHR 0.83 [95% CI 0.76-0.91]). Associations were independent of clinical predictors. Meaning: AI-detected TILs in pretreatment melanoma metastases independently correlate with response and survival.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
OncoImmunology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
2
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.9%
3
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.9%
4
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
5
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
6
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.5%
7
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.0%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.2%
10
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
11
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
12
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.6%
13
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
14
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.4%
15
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
17
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
18
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.1%
20
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
23
Annals of Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Cancer Immunology Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
26
Nature Cancer
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
28
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
30
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%