Cited by 44Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersGut microbiota and healthBacterial Cancer Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available; none of the 55 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer by producing durable antitumor responses, only 10%–30% of treated patients respond and the ability to predict clinical benefit remains elusive. Several studies, small in size and using variable analytic methods, suggest the gut microbiome may be a novel, modifiable biomarker for tumor response rates, but the specific bacteria or bacterial communities putatively impacting ICI responses have been inconsistent across the studied populations. Experimental Design: We have reanalyzed the available raw 16S rRNA amplicon and metagenomic sequencing data across five recently published ICI studies (n = 303 unique patients) using a uniform computational approach. Results: Herein, we identify novel bacterial signals associated with clinical responders (R) or nonresponders (NR) and develop an integrated microbiome prediction index. Unexpectedly, the NR-associated integrated index shows the strongest and most consistent signal using a random effects model and in a sensitivity and specificity analysis (P < 0.01). We subsequently tested the integrated index using validation cohorts across three distinct and diverse cancers (n = 105). Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the development of biomarkers for nonresponse, rather than response, in predicting ICI outcomes and suggests a new approach to identify patients who would benefit from microbiome-based interventions to improve response rates.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-4834

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 55 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 59 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 13
45 of 45
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The random-effects meta-analysis assumes that the true effect size can vary from study to study.

    “The fixed effects model assumes a single shared effect size across all analyzed studies, while the random effects model assumes the effect size may vary from study to study (60); in this analysis, we emphasized the random effects model results.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Antibiotics dominantly remodel the gut microbiome.

    “given the dominant microbiome remodeling induced by antibiotics”
2 of 2

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Pretreatment-only limitation conflicts with longitudinal samples

    Minor

    The limitations section says only pretreatment samples were available, but the results describe paired samples collected both before and during treatment in two cohorts.

1 of 1

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 60 · Cited by 44

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Therasse, 2000, New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada, J Natl Cancer Inst, 92, 205, 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Antonopoulos, 2019, PATRIC as a unique resource for studying antimicrobial resistance, Brief Bioinform, 20, 1094, 10.1093/bib/bbx083 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Shaikh, F. Y., White, J. R., Gills, J. J., Hakozaki, T., Richard, C., Routy, B., Okuma, Y., Usyk, M., Pandey, A., Weber, J. S., Ahn, J., Lipson, E. J., Naidoo, J., Pardoll, D. M., & Sears, C. L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Resphera Biosciences (US)
  • Tokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital (JP)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
Corresponding author
Sears, Cynthia L.
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2021-02-16
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
2571-2583
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W3129637558
Cited by
44
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (T32CA009071)
  • NCATS (KL2TR001077)
  • NCI (P30 CA006973)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Bacterial Cancer Therapy
Keywords
immune checkpoint inhibitors, gut microbiota, microbiome biomarkers, treatment non-response, predictive biomarkers, 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, metagenomics, random effects models, sensitivity and specificity, cancer immunotherapy response, microbiota-targeted interventions
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Whole Genome Sequencing, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Bacteria, Humans, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Genome, Bacterial, Computational Biology, Metagenomics, Microbiota

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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