PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

Machine learning–based transcriptomic signatures to predict treatment outcomes across targeted and immunotherapy regimens in renal cell carcinoma.

View Full Paper
PLPeng LiZMZuhair MajeedSÖSemiha Özgül

Key Points

  • The main goal is to develop machine learning-based transcriptomic signatures that reliably predict treatment outcomes for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
  • Analyzed transcriptomic and clinical data from 733 RCC patients treated with sunitinib or avelumab plus axitinib.
  • Applied a multi-algorithm feature selection framework to establish prognostic models for overall survival and progression-free survival.
  • Conducted external validation using an independent cohort from Ohio State University Total Cancer Care.
  • In the sunitinib cohort, C-indices for overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.81 and 0.72, respectively, outperforming standard classifiers like IMDC.
  • High-risk patients in the sunitinib cohort had a hazard ratio of 3.00 for progression-free survival and 13.42 for overall survival (both P < 0.001).
  • The Naive Bayes model achieved an AUC of 0.83 for predicting disease control, demonstrating strong risk stratification abilities.

Abstract

4526 Background: Despite available tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), reliable biomarkers guiding frontline advanced RCC treatment remain limited. Existing signatures lack generalizability across therapeutic regimens. We developed a data-driven machine learning (ML) framework to predict survival outcomes and therapeutic response. Methods: Transcriptomic and clinical data were analyzed from 733 patients across two frontline treatment cohorts, sunitinib (n = 376) and avelumab plus axitinib (n = 357), derived from JAVELIN Renal 101. A multi-algorithm feature selection framework was applied to identify transcriptomic signatures associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic performance was evaluated using the concordance index (C-index). Predictive models for therapeutic response, including disease control, were developed using PFS-derived gene signatures and assessed by area under the curve (AUC). External validation was performed in an independent cohort from The Ohio State University Total Cancer Care (OSU TCC) (n = 114). Results: ML-derived transcriptomic models consistently stratified patients into distinct risk groups with improved prognostic discrimination compared with standard clinical classifiers. In the sunitinib cohort, the best-performing models achieved C-indices of 0.72 for PFS and 0.81 for OS, outperforming IMDC (0.59 and 0.66). In the validation set of the sunitinib cohort, high-risk patients exhibited worse outcomes, with hazard ratios of 3.00 for PFS (P < 0.001, 95% CI, 2.06–4.39) and 13.42 for OS (P < 0.001, 95% CI, 7.78–23.13). In the avelumab plus axitinib cohort, C-indices reached 0.70 for PFS and 0.79 for OS. Consistent risk stratification was observed in the validation set, with hazard ratios of 3.16 for PFS (P < 0.001, 95% CI, 2.07–4.83) and 4.69 for OS (P < 0.001, 95% CI, 2.65–8.30). For response prediction, the models demonstrated predictive performance, with the Naive Bayes model achieving a validation AUC of 0.83 for disease control in both sunitinib and avelumab plus axitinib cohorts. The model showed significant risk stratification in an external validation cohort (OSU TCC). Conclusions: This study presents a multi-cohort transcriptomic framework with prognostic and predictive utility in advanced RCC. By outperforming established clinical risk classifiers and enabling prediction of regimen-specific therapeutic responses, this ML-based approach supports biomarker-informed frontline treatment selection.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192ea9fab5b468c4417c9dhttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.4526
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper