Stephane Koda
Jensen G. Weedor1- 1Department of Pathogen Biology and Immunology, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Immunity and Metabolism, Jiangsu International Laboratory of Immunity and Metabolism, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China
- 2Department of Physiology, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China
Editorial on the Research Topic
Cancer biology, immunotherapy and aging
1 Introduction
Cancer biology, immunotherapy, and aging converge in ways that challenge traditional clinical paradigms (Ontiveros et al., 2023; Kao et al., 2025). As the immune system undergoes age-related remodeling, including immunosenescence, chronic inflammation, stromal alteration, and metabolic shifts, the tumor microenvironment evolves in parallel, producing distinct patterns of tumor progression and therapy response (Erbe et al., 2021; Guegan et al., 2025). Yet, despite older adults comprising the majority of cancer diagnoses, they continue to be underrepresented in clinical research (Kao et al., 2025; Pallis et al., 2010; Berger et al., 2006). Emerging computational and image-based tools, as highlighted by the studies in this Research Topic, provide new opportunities to design age-inclusive strategies and overcome limitations in conventional risk stratification and biological understanding. These contributions collectively map the complex interplay between aging physiology and cancer behavior while showcasing the strengths and weaknesses of current analytical approaches.
2 Methodological integration: machine learning, radiomics, transcriptomics, and clinical modeling
2.1 Machine learning for risk prediction
Several studies in this Research Topic deploy machine learning (ML) to address gaps in traditional clinical prediction models. The differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) study demonstrates the strength of ensemble algorithms, particularly XGBoost, for capturing nonlinear interactions between clinical variables. Similarly, the breast cancer axillary lymph node burden analysis highlights the value of combining radiomics with ML to extract predictive imaging signatures not discernible through human assessment. These methods show clear advantages in handling high-dimensional data, improving accuracy, and enabling personalized risk estimation. However, a shared limitation emerges: ML models rely heavily on retrospective datasets, are vulnerable to overfitting, and often lack interpretability despite tools like SHAP. External validation, present in some studies but absent in others, remains essential before these tools can be clinically deployed.
2.2 Transcriptomics and immunogenomic modeling
The study identifying T-cell exhaustion and macrophage polarization genes in breast cancer leverages multi-omics data integration and machine learning to uncover immune-related prognostic signatures. This contrasts with imaging-driven methods but shares the goal of revealing biological complexity underlying variable clinical outcomes.
While this approach offers mechanistic depth not available through radiomics or clinical modeling, it introduces its own constraints, such as variability across datasets, bulk RNA-seq limitations (cell-type averaging), and challenges in translating genetic signatures into actionable clinical decision-making.
2.3 Nomograms as clinically pragmatic tools
The glioma and colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (CRNEN) studies use traditional regression-based nomograms, long valued for their transparency and clinician usability. Unlike ML models, nomograms allow straightforward bedside application and highlight effect sizes for individual variables. Yet, these model types assume linearity and may oversimplify complex interactions, a trade-off between usability and nuance.
Notably, the CRNEN models incorporate a dual predictive-prognostic framework, illustrating how classic methodologies continue to evolve when embedded within large, high-quality datasets.
2.4 Clinical case evidence
The TAS-102 case report, while not methodologically complex, fills a crucial evidence gap: real-world therapeutic guidance for frail, multimorbid elderly patients. Such clinical narratives complement computational studies by grounding innovations in practical, human-centered contexts, an essential dimension often absent from data-driven work.
2.5 Cross-study themes: What do these findings tell us?
2.5.1 Aging as a central yet underexplored modifier of cancer biology
Across tumor types, these works emphasize that aging fundamentally shapes cancer risk, microenvironment, treatment tolerance, and clinical trajectory. Yet, only a minority of the included studies explicitly stratify by age or examine age-specific biological mechanisms, revealing a critical research gap.
2.5.2 The rise of precision oncology tools
Radiomics, machine learning, and transcriptomics each offer a different “lens” through which to view tumor behavior. When integrated, these modalities could enable more accurate, multi-dimensional prediction models that reflect both tumor biology and host factors, particularly in older patients.
2.5.3 Data limitations and the need for prospective validation
Nearly all studies rely on retrospective datasets such as SEER or single-center cohorts. While rich in sample size, these datasets lack functional biomarkers, treatment toxicity data, and geriatric assessments. Prospective, age-inclusive cohorts are urgently needed.
2.6 Limitations across the Research Topic
Despite their contributions, the studies share several overarching limitations:
1. Retrospective designs introduce selection bias and limit causal inference.
2. Lack of functional aging measures: chronological age alone inadequately captures biological aging or treatment tolerance.
3. Limited longitudinal data: Few studies examine dynamic changes over time, especially relevant for aging-related biology.
4. Sparse diversity in many datasets underrepresents low-income, rural, and minority populations.
5. Translational gap: predictive models often lack pathways for real-world implementation in clinics.
Addressing these limitations will be essential to ensure that computational advances translate into meaningful clinical impact.
2.7 Future perspectives
2.7.1 Integrating geriatric assessment with computational tools
Models incorporating frailty indices, functional status, inflammatory markers, and patient-reported outcomes could dramatically improve prediction accuracy for older adults.
2.7.2 Multi-modal predictive platforms
Future studies should explore models that combine:
a. Clinical data
b. Radiomics
c. Genomics
d. Immune profiling
e. Aging biomarkers
Such integration could capture the full biological and clinical complexity of cancer in aging populations.
2.7.3 Prospective and interventional studies
Predictive models must move beyond validation toward prospective testing, where predictions actively inform treatment choices.
2.7.4 Ethical and policy considerations
As ML models become more prevalent, transparency, fairness, and bias mitigation will be critical, particularly in elderly populations disproportionately affected by health disparities.
3 Conclusion
The studies in this Research Topic collectively demonstrate how emerging analytic tools and biological insights can refine cancer characterization and improve clinical decision-making across diverse tumor types. Yet they also highlight persistent challenges: inadequate age-specific data, limited external validation, and gaps in real-world applicability. Bridging these divides will require interdisciplinary collaboration, prospective validation, and a deeper commitment to studying cancer through the lens of aging biology.
By embracing these directions, the field can move toward genuinely personalized, age-inclusive oncology where innovations in cancer immunotherapy, computational science, and geroscience converge to benefit all patients across the lifespan.
Author contributions
SK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. JGW: Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization. PBS: Writing – review and editing, Methodology, Visualization, Software.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Berger, N. A., Savvides, P., Koroukian, S. M., Kahana, E. F., Deimling, G. T., Rose, J. H., et al. (2006). Cancer in the elderly. Trans. Am. Clin. Climatol. Assoc. 117, 147–155.
Erbe, R., Wang, Z., Wu, S., Xiu, J., Zaidi, N., La, J., et al. (2021). Evaluating the impact of age on immune checkpoint therapy biomarkers. Cell Rep. 36, 109599. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109599
Guegan, M., Bichon, M., Chaput, N., Houot, R., and Lemoine, J. (2025). Cancer immunotherapy in elderly patients: the concept of immune senescence challenged by clinical experience. Eur. J. Cancer 214, 115145. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115145
Kao, C., Charmsaz, S., Tsai, H. L., Aziz, K., Shu, D. H., Munjal, K., et al. (2025). Age-related divergence of circulating immune responses in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nat. Commun. 16, 3531. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58512-z
Ontiveros, C. O., Murray, C. E., Crossland, G., and Curiel, T. J. (2023). Considerations and approaches for cancer immunotherapy in the aging host. Cancer Immunol. Res. 11, 1449–1461. doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-23-0121
Keywords: aging, cancer biology, data-driven methods, immunotherapy, tumor microenvironment
Citation: Koda S, Weedor JG and Botolo Sakava P (2026) Editorial: Cancer biology, immunotherapy and aging. Front. Aging 7:1776719. doi: 10.3389/fragi.2026.1776719
Received: 28 December 2025; Accepted: 02 January 2026;
Published: 20 January 2026.
Edited and reviewed by:
Anshu Agrawal, University of California, Irvine, CA, United StatesCopyright © 2026 Koda, Weedor and Botolo Sakava. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stephane Koda, a29kYXN0ZXBoYW5lQHlhaG9vLmZy