Back

Not All Predictors Of RCC Clusters Are The Same: An individual sample predictive model to classify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Reddy, A.;Brewer, W.;Haake, S.;Rini, B.

2026-06-29 Cancer Biology
10.64898/2026.06.24.734285 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients have multiple approved therapies, including anti-angiogenesis tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immuno-oncology therapies (IO), but lack a clinically validated biomarker. Using RNAseq data from the IMmotion 151 clinical trial (IM151)1-3, 7 RCC biologic clusters have been defined3. Several groups have attempted to predict these clusters on various RCC datasets4,5 with negative results, suggesting that the association with therapy response from IM151 could not be reproduced. We hypothesized that the specific approaches used to generate cluster predictions led to the misinterpretation of findings. Both published models used standardization (z-scores) to normalize the data within their patient cohorts, imposing an expected gene expression distribution in which [~]50% of patients have apparently higher-than-average expression, artificially impacting the proportion of cluster assignments and leading to potential misclassification. We developed a machine learning (ML) model, IRIS-RCC (Individual RNA-seq Intrinsic Subtyping for RCC), to predict treatment (TKI vs. IO) for patients using an individual-sample model using the IM151 trial (N=823) and validated the model on the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (JR101; N=726)3,6. Our method normalizes gene expression within a given sample using ratiometric expression. This method results in different cluster assignments for individual tumors and distinct clinical correlations. An additional advantage of individual-sample predictions is that they can be readily applied in a prospective setting, where patients must be classified one at a time. IRIS-RCC is currently being validated in a prospective biomarker-driven Phase II clinical trial (OPTIC RCC).

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 13%
13.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.3%
3
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.6%
4
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
5
Nature Cancer
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.4%
6
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.4%
7
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.9%
8
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.5%
9
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.5%
10
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
12
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
14
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
15
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.4%
16
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
18
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.2%
19
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
75 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
21
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
22
Kidney International Reports
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
23
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
25
Leukemia
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
26
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
29
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
30
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%