Neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC: Phase 2 trial interim results (NEOTIDE/CTONG2104).
The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- ✓Overall, the reproduction was clean
- 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
A 0–100 reproducibility-quality score from the per-question grades, shown as a z-score: standard deviations above (+) or below (−) the mean of comparable assessments.
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
Described well enough to reproduce the PUBLIC single-cell results 1:1. The room registry pinned SOPRANO (a third-party dN/dS tool), but the paper prints NO numeric SOPRANO result and ships NO usable WES input (raw reads on-request) -> that route is unverifiable (no_expected_result + data_restricted). Per brief rule P16, pivoted to the paper's own public data (GEO GSE241934) + its own scRNA code (NEOTIDE_scRNA) and audited the headline single-cell cell counts against the deposited per-cell metadata. All three reported counts match EXACTLY: total 308,196 (IIT 78,691 + RWC 229,505), lymphoid 211,076 (T+B+NK), myeloid 31,547 (Myeloid); every lineage sub-total reconciles to 308,196 -> no fabrication signal for these numbers. Only discrepancy: deposited data has 45 unique sampleIDs vs reported '44 patients' (benign 1-off). NOT attempted: re-running clustering from raw matrices (the optional 20%; QC thresholds not documented in README, low marginal value once the deposited annotation is verified), SOPRANO dN/dS (no target value + restricted WES), TMB/NetMHCpan (no pinnable value), bulk RNA GSA HRA007419 (region-gated). One light SLURM job, no env build, all data on «infra».
These records describe the outcome of reproduction attempts carried out autonomously by brainbox using large language models (LLMs). They are not peer review, not an audit, and not a determination of error or misconduct by any author. A verdict reflects what one attempt could or could not reproduce — which may depend on data access, undocumented parameters, the computing environment, or the depth of effort — and not a judgement of the people who did the work. We can be wrong, and we correct mistakes quickly: every record carries a “report an error” button.
Assessment versions
Every reproduction run is kept as an immutable version — anchored to the data as it stood, with a tamper-evident chain hash. A rerun (e.g. after an author updates a deposit) adds a new version; the previous one stays on record.
-
v1 current initial assessment Score 72assessed: 2026-06-14 ⛓ ccf328c13ded
✎ I am an author of this paper
Updated or fixed a deposit, or is there an erratum? Ask us to re-run the metrics. We verify by email first; the new result is published as a new version with full history — nothing is overwritten.
Provenance — full disclosure
When this reproduction was carried out, which methodology version was used, and by whom — so the record can be audited and checked independently.
- Reproduced
- 2026-06-14
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-15no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-08-05
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: sonnetThe trial tests whether neoadjuvant sintilimab (anti-PD-1) combined with carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy is clinically feasible, safe, and effective in resectable EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and explores multiomic features that predict response versus resistance to this immunochemotherapy regimen.
- ★ Neoadjuvant sintilimab plus carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel is clinically feasible and tolerable in resectable EGFR-mutant NSCLC, with all 18 patients completing treatment and undergoing radical surgery. finding
- ★ The regimen achieved 44% MPR and no pCR, with 78% radiological partial response. finding
- ★ Similar genomic alterations were observed before and after treatment without influencing efficacy of subsequent EGFR-TKIs in vitro (patient-derived organoids). finding
- ★ Infiltration and TCR clonal expansion of CCR8+ Treg-high/CXCL13+ Tex-low cells define a subtype of EGFR-mutant NSCLC highly resistant to immunotherapy. mechanism
- ★ This CCR8+ Treg/CXCL13+ Tex phenotype may serve as a signature to predict immunotherapy efficacy. finding
- ★ Tumor-informed ctDNA (MRD) detection can help identify patients nonresponsive to neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy. finding
- Baseline genomic features (e.g., TP53 mutation status, smoking signature) are associated with likelihood of MPR. finding
- Second-generation EGFR-TKIs retain superior anti-tumor activity in patient-derived organoids from poorly responding patients with uncommon EGFR mutations. finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-exome sequencing (WES) | pre- and post-treatment tumor tissue, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients (n=12 analyzed) | neoadjuvant sintilimab + carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel | somatic mutations, TMB, CNVs, mutational signatures, HLA-LOH, CIN | — |
| Bulk RNA-sequencing | resected/biopsy tumor tissue | neoadjuvant sintilimab + chemotherapy | gene expression profiling associated with pathological response | — |
| Single-cell RNA-seq / TCR-seq | tumor tissue, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients | neoadjuvant sintilimab + chemotherapy | T cell subsets (Treg, Tex) infiltration and TCR clonal expansion | — |
| Tumor-informed ctDNA/MRD detection (PROPHET algorithm) | serial peripheral blood, EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients (n=12, 77 samples) | neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment course | ctDNA positivity/fraction, correlation with pathological response | PROPHET, Burning Rock Biotech custom 50-gene (or 20-gene) panel |
| Patient-derived organoid (PDO) drug susceptibility testing | PDOs from poorly responding patients (NOD02, NOD05) with uncommon EGFR mutations | EGFR-TKI treatment (first- vs second-generation) | in vitro anti-tumor activity/sensitivity | — |
| Multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) | tumor tissue and matched PDOs | none | confirmation of tumor origin/identity between tissue and organoid | — |
| Flow cytometry | peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) | neoadjuvant sintilimab + chemotherapy | CD3+CD4+ T cell and CD19+ B cell dynamics | — |
| Plasma cytokine measurement | peripheral blood plasma | neoadjuvant sintilimab + chemotherapy | IL-8 and IL-6 levels before/after treatment | — |
- ▲ 14 of 18 patients (78%) achieved radiological partial response; 4 (22%) had stable disease with no progression. 78%
- – 8 of 18 patients (44%) achieved major pathological response (MPR); no pathological complete response (pCR) observed. 44% MPR, 0% pCR
- ▲ 56% of patients (10/18) had confirmed pathological downstaging. 56%
- ▲ Non-smokers were more likely to achieve MPR than ever-smokers. 100% vs 50%, p=0.04
- ▲ Pretreatment TP53 missense mutations occurred more frequently in MPR than nMPR patients. 80% vs 14%, p=0.07
- – Only 1 of 9 patients (11%) had EGFR mutation undetectable in resected specimens after neoadjuvant immunotherapy, indicating minimal impact on subsequent TKI targetability. 11%
- ▲ PDOs from poorly responding patients showed superior anti-tumor activity of second-generation EGFR-TKIs, consistent with historical clinical data for uncommon EGFR mutations.
- ▼ ctDNA positivity decreased during neoadjuvant treatment; only one patient had detectable ctDNA before surgery and that patient failed to achieve MPR.
- other 44% MPR (8/18) (major pathological response rate)
- other 78% PR (14/18) (radiological partial response rate)
- pvalue p = 0.04 (non-smoking status associated with MPR (100% vs 50%))
- pvalue p = 0.07 (TP53 missense mutation frequency in MPR vs nMPR (80% vs 14%))
- pvalue p = 0.05 (lower smoking mutational signature enriched in MPR patients)
- pvalue p = 0.003 (baseline mean tumor molecules correlated with MPR status)
- count 7 of 18 (39%) (patients with grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events)
- count 11% (1/9) EGFR mutation not detected post-treatment (WES of resected specimens after neoadjuvant immunotherapy)
Statistical methods review
Model: opusA neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.
This is an interim analysis of a single-arm, investigator-initiated phase 2 trial using a Simon's two-stage design, evaluating neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy in 18 EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, with clinical efficacy reported descriptively as response/MPR/pCR rates. Exploratory correlative analyses compared MPR versus non-MPR groups on baseline characteristics, genomic features, and immune profiles using categorical and two-group tests, and integrated WES, RNA-seq, single-cell RNA/TCR-seq, and tumor-informed ctDNA/MRD monitoring. Group comparisons relied on Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and t tests (Welch's, Student's) for continuous variables, with MRD performance summarized via sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Welch's t test | Age (mean ± SD) compared between MPR and nMPR groups (Table 1) | N=18 (8 MPR, 10 nMPR) | not stated |
| Fisher's exact test | Categorical baseline characteristics (gender, smoking, PS, staging, histology, EGFR subtype, T/N stage, TNM, PD-L1) between MPR and nMPR (Table 1); TP53 mutation frequency; smoking history (Figure 3) | N=18 (clinical); N=12 (genomic subset) | na |
| Student's t test | Proportion of smoking mutational signature between MPR and nMPR patients (Figure 3B) | genomic subset (12 patients) | not stated |
| Descriptive diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) | Longitudinal tumor-informed MRD/ctDNA detection for pathological response (Figure 3F) | 12 patients with ctDNA analysis | na |
| Maximum likelihood estimation (PROPHET algorithm) | Determination of ctDNA presence/positivity in MRD detection | 77 samples from 12 patients | na |
| Unspecified two-group comparison (p value reported) | Mean tumor molecules vs MPR status at baseline (p=0.003) and other timepoints; TMB/WGD/aneuploidy/HLA-LOH/CIN comparisons (Figure S6, S7) | 12 patients | not stated |
-
Continuous variables such as age were compared between MPR and nMPR with t tests (Welch's, Student's).↳ Could also: A nonparametric Mann-Whitney U (Wilcoxon rank-sum) test could also be used. — With small per-group sizes (n=8 and n=10), a rank-based test does not rely on the normality assumption and is commonly chosen for small samples; reporting it alongside the t test would convey robustness of the comparison.
-
Numerous baseline clinical and genomic features were each compared between MPR and nMPR with separate Fisher's exact or t tests, with unadjusted p values.↳ Could also: A multiple-comparison adjustment (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg FDR) across the family of exploratory biomarker comparisons could also be applied. — Adjusting across the many tests would control the false-discovery or family-wise error rate; given the exploratory framing, presenting both adjusted and nominal p values helps readers calibrate which signals are hypothesis-generating.
-
Continuous results were summarized as mean ± SD (and some as range).↳ Could also: Reporting a 95% confidence interval or median with IQR could also accompany these summaries. — For small samples a CI conveys the precision of the estimate and a median/IQR is robust to outliers, complementing the point estimate and dispersion already shown.
-
Group differences were emphasized via p values, including marginal ones (e.g., 0.05–0.08), interpreted descriptively.↳ Could also: Reporting effect-size measures (e.g., odds ratios for categorical, standardized mean differences for continuous) with confidence intervals could also be included. — Effect sizes with intervals quantify the magnitude and uncertainty of associations independent of sample size, which is informative when n is small and many p values are near conventional thresholds.
-
MRD/ctDNA performance was summarized with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV at each timepoint.↳ Could also: Adding 95% confidence intervals (e.g., exact/Clopper-Pearson) for these proportions could also be reported. — With 12 patients, interval estimates convey the considerable uncertainty around each performance metric and make timepoint-to-timepoint comparisons easier to interpret.
-
Pathological response (MPR) was analyzed as a binary outcome against individual predictors one at a time.↳ Could also: A penalized or exact logistic regression (e.g., Firth's) could also be used to examine predictors jointly. — A multivariable or penalized model can account for correlated predictors and the separation/zero-cell issues common in small datasets, offering a complementary view to the univariate comparisons.
Result convergence & founder nodes
Findings this paper shares with others that ran a comparable experiment. A node’s strength is how many independent papers report it (replication breadth) — not how often it is cited, so a heavily-replicated but under-cited founder still stands out.
-
MPR rates differed by EGFR mutation subtype: exon 20 insertion 75%, other uncommon 50%, sensitive mutations 30%, following neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy.imaging human nsclc mixed 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
Non-smoking EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients had higher MPR rates than smokers (100% vs 50%) following neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy.imaging human nsclc up 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
44% (8/18) of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients achieved major pathological response with neoadjuvant sintilimab plus carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel; no pCR observed.imaging human nsclc 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
78% (14/18) of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients achieved partial radiological response; 22% had stable disease with no progression following neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy.imaging human nsclc 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
56% (10/18) of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients achieved confirmed pathological downstaging following neoadjuvant sintilimab plus chemotherapy.imaging human nsclc 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
Baseline ctDNA tumor molecule count correlated with MPR status (p=0.003); pre-surgery ctDNA positivity was associated with failure to achieve MPR in EGFR-mutant NSCLC.other human nsclc 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
EGFR driver mutations persisted in 89% (8/9) of resected tumors after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy, indicating minimal genomic clearance by treatment.WES human nsclc none 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
Pretreatment TP53 missense mutations were more frequent in MPR than non-MPR patients (80% vs 14%) in EGFR-mutant NSCLC treated with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.WES human nsclc up 2024×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
Citation network
Where this publication sits in the reproducibility-weighted citation graph — what it is built on, and what is built on it. Citation data from OpenAlex.
No assessed neighbours yet — the network grows as more papers are assessed.
Data lineage
The datasets this paper uses (text-mined from the full text via Europe PMC), and which other assessed papers stand on the same data. A shared dataset is a factual link — not a judgement.
Downstream reach in the literature
99 downstream papers · 1 datasetsHow widely the datasets deposited by this paper are reused across the whole literature (Europe PMC), beyond our assessed set. This is a factual dependency map — reusing a public dataset is normal, good science. It is not a judgement on the downstream papers; the only verdict here is this paper's own, with its cited rationale.
- Defining T Cell States Associated with Response to C... 2018 · 1,561 cites
- Molecular and pharmacological modulators of the tumo... 2019 · 1,199 cites
- ImmuCellAI: A Unique Method for Comprehensive T-Cell... 2020 · 728 cites
- Collagen promotes anti-PD-1/PD-L1 resistance in canc... 2020 · 335 cites
- B cells sustain inflammation and predict response to... 2019 · 319 cites
- Exaggerated false positives by popular differential... 2022 · 237 cites
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-38897205 (NEOTIDE/CTONG2104, Cell Rep Med 2024)
Paper
Neoadjuvant sintilimab + chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC (NEOTIDE/CTONG2104). Phase-2 interim. PMID 38897205 / PMC11293361 / DOI 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101615.
Code & data availability (verbatim from paper)
- "No custom computer codes are reported in this paper. Codes used for scRNA-seq analysis are available from https://github.com/AndersonChaos/NEOTIDE_scRNA and on Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.11235504)."
- single-cell: GEO GSE241934 (PUBLIC, processed matrices + metadata).
- bulk RNA: GSA HRA007419 (China GSA, controlled / region-gated).
- WES + ctDNA variant-level: Supplementary Tables S9–S12 (in-paper); raw WES reads = "upon request from lead contact" (restricted).
Registry pin vs reality
The room registry pinned SOPRANO (github.com/luisgls/SOPRANO) as the code. SOPRANO is a third-party dN/dS tool the authors used on WES data, but:
- the paper reports no specific ON/OFF-target dN/dS value, no p-value, no figure
panel for the SOPRANO analysis →
no_expected_result(nothing to compare to). - the WES raw reads needed to re-run SOPRANO are on-request / restricted (only variant-level tables are shipped, no immunopeptidome BED, no params). → The SOPRANO route is NOT reproducible (no target value AND restricted input).
Per brief rule P16 ("applying the paper's own analysis code to the paper's own public data is equally valid"), we pivot to the reproducible combination: NEOTIDE_scRNA code + GSE241934 public scRNA-seq data.
In scope (pipeline-derived, public data, pinnable numbers)
Clear, low-hanging, auditable claims from the single-cell pipeline (Results / STAR Methods / Fig S9–S10):
- C1: total cells after QC = 308,196 cells from 44 patients.
- C2: lymphoid cells = 211,076.
- C3: myeloid cells = 31,547. These are directly checkable against the deposited per-cell metadata (GSE241934 *_Meta.txt.gz: one row per cell, lineage + patient annotation). This is the honest 1:1 fabrication-check the study wants: does the deposited, processed dataset actually contain the cell numbers the paper reports?
Out of scope (not attempted, with reason)
- SOPRANO dN/dS — no reported value + restricted WES (see above).
- Full re-clustering from raw matrices (the hard 20%): QC thresholds not in README, would need to reverse-engineer Major.R; high effort, low marginal value once the deposited annotation is audited. Skipped by 80/20.
- TMB / NetMHCpan neoantigen burden — "no significant difference" reported with no numeric value (Fig S6); not pinnable. Restricted WES input. Out.
- Bulk RNA (GSA HRA007419) — region-gated controlled access. Out.
Pipeline(s) named per in-scope result
C1–C3: 10x Cell Ranger → Seurat (R, NEOTIDE_scRNA: Major.R) QC + lineage annotation → cell counts. We verify the END product (deposited annotated metadata) against the reported counts.
Assessments & scoring basis
Each contributor’s verdict, the per-question basis, and the auditable, itemised worksheet behind it.
An automated assessment. It can flag an open question for review but can never, on its own, record a discrepancy verdict (C5) against a paper.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
The reproducible portion — the paper's public single-cell headline counts — reproduces 1:1 from the deposited GSE241934 metadata (308,196 total; 211,076 lymphoid; 31,547 myeloid), with all lineage sub-totals reconciling and no fabrication signal. The only deviation is a benign off-by-one patient count (44 reported vs 45 sampleIDs), an input/sample-definition labeling issue, most plausibly one patient with two samples — negligible in severity and on the authors' descriptive side, not our method. The registry-pinned SOPRANO dN/dS is genuinely unverifiable (no printed value + restricted WES), a data-availability limit rather than a defect, so it does not count against derivability. Overall a clean, near-1:1 reproduction of the checkable claims.
Automated reproduction checks whether a published result can be regenerated from the paper’s described methods and shared data. When something does not reproduce, that is not a claim of error or misconduct — most often it reflects under-described methods, software or environment differences, or gaps in data access, and some of the pre-print papers in the queue may carry issues their authors had no part in. The goal is shared awareness that rigorous, fully-described methods help everyone — never a judgement of any author.
Are you an author? We would genuinely like to hear from you — to clarify the record, add data or code, re-run the pipeline after an accession update, and publish your response right next to the assessment. Everything here is open and auditable.
🚩 Report an error in this record
Spotted something wrong — a verdict you’d contest, a data or value error, or a private detail that slipped through? Tell us, with a short justification. Authors and readers are equally welcome to write in; we review every report.
Prefer email, or the form below not working? Contact us at support@doesitreproduce.com.
Reproduction footprint
claude-opus-4-8Measured resources invested to assess this paper — sanitised (machine class only, no job ids/paths). Compute = HPC accounting (SLURM); tokens = the AI agent's session.