PubMed2026
BACKGROUND: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a robust prognostic marker in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Artificial intelligence (AI)-derived computational tools assessing TILs could improve efficiency, but require independent validation against clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the prognostic performance of AI-derived TIL scores with pathologist-scored TILs in a large, prospectively collected dataset pooled from randomised controlled trials. METHODS: CATALINA was an independent, external validation study using prospectively collected long-term clinical outcome data pooled from seven randomised clinical trials conducted at multiple sites. We independently evaluated two previously validated AI pipelines that generate five computationally assessed tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (cTIL) scores by masked, independent deployment of locked models. cTIL scores were correlated with the mean of the pathologist-scored stromal TILs (sTILs) in 220 digitised haematoxylin and eosin whole slide images in a cohort of patients with early-stage triple-negative or HER-2 positive breast cancer, previously scored by trained pathologists in a TIL-reproducibility study. Prognostic performance was assessed in a separate cohort of patients with early triple-negative breast cancer pooled from seven prospective, randomised adjuvant trials. Multivariable Cox regression models adjusted for clinicopathological factors and study heterogeneity assessed associations of cTIL score and sTIL score with invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival. 5-year discrimination was estimated using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). FINDINGS: Individual data were collated from 1759 patients, of whom 1356 had complete clinicopathological data, pathologist sTIL scores, and cTIL scores available. Modest correlation (r 0·375-0·473) was observed between cTIL scores and the mean pathologist sTIL score. Both sTIL and cTIL were independently associated with 5-year invasive disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and overall survival after adjustment for clinicopathological factors (hazard ratio for invasive disease-free survival was 0·73 [95% CI 0·66-0·82]; q<0·0001, distant disease-free survival was 0·70 [0·61-0·79]; q<0·0001, and overall survival was 0·72 [0·63-0·82]; q<0·0001 for sTIL scores and 0·80 [0·73-0·89]; q<0·0001, 0·77 [0·69-0·86]; q<0·0001, and 0·79 [0·70-0·88]; q=0·0002, respectively, for percentage_lymphocyte scores). In models adjusted for clinicopathological variables and sTIL score, cTIL score did not maintain a statistically significant prognostic association. Both sTIL and cTIL scores improved the 5-year AUC over clinicopathological variables alone, while cTIL score did not significantly further improve AUC when combined with clinicopathological variables and sTIL score. INTERPRETATION: Two cTIL models deployed entirely without retraining or modification provided statistically significant prognostic information and improved risk discrimination compared with clinicopathological variables alone in this large, platform-based, independent validation study. Although cTIL score did not incrementally improve prognostication compared with models combining clinicopathological variables with sTIL score, these findings support the application of cTILs as a reproducible prognostic biomarker, particularly in settings where routine or widespread pathologist assessment is unavailable. FUNDING: Breast Cancer Research Foundation (USA).