Cited by 1,039Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

Integrative molecular and clinical modeling of clinical outcomes to PD1 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma

Open access
Liu, David, Schilling, Bastian, Liu, Derek, Sucker, Antje, Livingstone, Elisabeth, Jerby-Arnon, Livnat, Zimmer, Lisa, Gutzmer, Ralf +28 more·2019·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has demonstrated efficacy in many tumor types, but predictors of responsiveness to anti-PD1 ICB are incompletely characterized. In this study, we analyzed a clinically annotated cohort of patients with melanoma (n = 144) treated with anti-PD1 ICB, with whole-exome and whole-transcriptome sequencing of pre-treatment tumors. We found that tumor mutational burden as a predictor of response was confounded by melanoma subtype, whereas multiple novel genomic and transcriptomic features predicted selective response, including features associated with MHC-I and MHC-II antigen presentation. Furthermore, previous anti-CTLA4 ICB exposure was associated with different predictors of response compared to tumors that were naive to ICB, suggesting selective immune effects of previous exposure to anti-CTLA4 ICB. Finally, we developed parsimonious models integrating clinical, genomic and transcriptomic features to predict intrinsic resistance to anti-PD1 ICB in individual tumors, with validation in smaller independent cohorts limited by the availability of comprehensive data. Broadly, we present a framework to discover predictive features and build models of ICB therapeutic response.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-019-0654-5

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Differential pathway representation analysis in the Liu cohort identified 78 pathways significantly dysregulated between responders and nonresponders (two-sided t test P < 0.05).

    “Our analysis identified distinct pathway signatures differentiating responders from nonresponders, with 78 pathways showing significant dysregulation (two-sided t test, P < 0.05; Fig. 6A, Supplementary Text, and fig. S4, A to E).”

    From PathTIGR: A pathway topology-informed graph representation learning framework for immunotherapy response prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    In Results, “Genomic and transcriptomic features associated with response” (page unavailable), Liu et al. report pathways differing between responders and progressors. They report 24 pathways enriched in responders by GSEA at FDR q < 0.1, not 78 pathways by a two-sided t test at P < 0.05. The citing sentence calls the 78-pathway result “Our analysis,” so that result should not be treated as a finding reported by Liu et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Liu cohort, model-predicted responders had significantly improved overall survival compared with nonresponders (log-rank test P < 0.0001).

    “Analysis demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among model-predicted responders compared to nonresponders (log-rank test, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2, E and F).”

    From PathTIGR: A pathway topology-informed graph representation learning framework for immunotherapy response prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results section, “Integrative predictive modeling of primary resistance” (page unavailable), reports better overall survival for patients with high versus low model scores, with log-rank P < 0.0001 in the ipilimumab-naive subgroup. The claim applies that P value to the Liu cohort generally, but the ipilimumab-treated subgroup had an overall-survival P value of 0.001. The source compares model-score groups rather than explicitly labeling them model-predicted responders and nonresponders. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In univariate Cox regression in the Liu cohort, PathTIGR was significantly associated with patient outcomes and showed the lowest hazard ratio (HR = 0.189, P < 0.001).

    “univariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis further revealed that bone metastasis, brain metastasis, and the PathTIGR model were significantly associated with patient outcomes, with PathTIGR showing the lowest hazard ratio (HR = 0.189, P < 0.001; Fig. 2H)”

    From PathTIGR: A pathway topology-informed graph representation learning framework for immunotherapy response prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results section’s cohort-characteristics table identifies Liu’s melanoma cohort, and Methods > Patient cohort and clinical end points defines its survival outcomes (page numbers unavailable). Our copy does not report PathTIGR or the stated univariate Cox result, HR = 0.189 and P < 0.001. It supports identifying the cohort, but not attributing that finding to Liu et al. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Liu cohort, model-predicted responders had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with nonresponders (log-rank test P < 0.0001).

    “Analysis demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among model-predicted responders compared to nonresponders (log-rank test, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2, E and F).”

    From PathTIGR: A pathway topology-informed graph representation learning framework for immunotherapy response prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    In Results, ‘Integrative predictive modeling of primary resistance’ (page unavailable), Liu et al. report longer PFS for patients with high versus low model scores in both ipilimumab subgroups. Their PFS log-rank P values are 0.0001 and 0.005, respectively—not P < 0.0001. The passage also concerns Liu et al.’s own model, so it does not verify the citing paper’s model-predicted groups. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • PathTIGR achieved an AUC of 0.975 (95% CI 0.962 to 0.997) for immune checkpoint inhibitor response prediction in the Liu melanoma cohort of 144 patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy.

    “Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated exceptional discriminatory performance for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response prediction, yielding an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.975 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.962 to 0.997; Fig. 2A].”

    From PathTIGR: A pathway topology-informed graph representation learning framework for immunotherapy response prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results section on cohort characteristics reports 144 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. The Results section on predictive modeling reports AUCs of 0.90 and 0.77 for Liu’s subgroup models; our copy does not report PathTIGR or an AUC of 0.975 with the stated confidence interval. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, D., Schilling, B., Liu, D., Sucker, A., Livingstone, E., Jerby-Arnon, L., Zimmer, L., Gutzmer, R., Satzger, I., Loquai, C., Grabbe, S., Vokes, N., Margolis, C. A., Conway, J., He, M. X., Elmarakeby, H., Dietlein, F., Miao, D., Tracy, A., Gogas, H., Goldinger, S. M., Utikal, J., Blank, C. U., Rauschenberg, R., von Bubnoff, D., Krackhardt, A., Weide, B., Haferkamp, S., Kiecker, F., Izar, B., Garraway, L., Regev, A., Flaherty, K., Paschen, A., Van Allen, E. M., & Schadendorf, D.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen (DE)
  • University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Schadendorf, Dirk
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-12
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
1916-1927
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2991341799
Cited by
1,039
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 156 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 210 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 64 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
37.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Nature
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1144152)
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation (T32 GM008313)
  • Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
  • Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SCHA422/17-1, SCHA 422/17, PA 2376/1‐, HO 6389/2-1, KFO337, 2376/1-1, 6389/2-1, PA 2376/1‐1)
  • Universität des Saarlandes
  • Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen Heidelberg
  • National Institutes of Health (DGE1144152)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG002295)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA227388, K08CA222663, K08CA234458, U01CA233100)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008313)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
metastatic melanoma, predictive biomarkers, tumor mutational burden, MHC class I antigen presentation, MHC class II antigen presentation, immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance, transcriptomic features, clinical outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Exome Sequencing, Nivolumab, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Mutation, Neoplasm Metastasis, Antigen Presentation, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Transcriptome, CTLA-4 Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review