MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907028960 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5904

Association of Patient Sex With Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Overall Survival in Advanced Cancers

2019· review· en· W2907028960 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Mohit Butaney, Raj Satkunasivam, Stephen J. Freedland, Sandip Pravin Patel, Omid Hamid, Sumanta K. Pal, Zachary Klaassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunotherapyHazard ratioMeta-analysisInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialObservational studyClinical trialOncologyMEDLINECancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Sex-associated differences in immune response are known, but a meta-analysis suggested men, compared with women, derive greater value from immunotherapy for advanced solid-organ malignant neoplasms. However, methodologic concerns and subsequent trials have placed these results in doubt. OBJECTIVE: To perform an updated, comprehensive meta-analysis that assesses the efficacy of immunotherapy in advanced cancers according to patient sex. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic review of studies (n = 23) indexed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 2, 2018, was conducted. Randomized clinical trials that compared immunotherapy with standard of care in the treatment of advanced solid-organ malignant neoplasms were included if overall survival was reported as an outcome and if data stratified by patient sex were available. Observational studies, editorials, commentaries, review articles, non-peer-reviewed publications, studies that compared various immunotherapy regimens, studies that reported other measures of oncologic response, and studies that reported subgroup analyses for 1 sex only were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival, with a test for heterogeneity between women and men, to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage of immunotherapy exists by patient sex. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 23 randomized clinical trials that reported on 9322 men (67.9%) and 4399 women (32.1%); the age of most patients was in the 70s. An overall survival benefit of immunotherapy was found for both men (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81; P < .001) and women (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88; P = .002). Random-effects meta-analysis of study-level differences in response to immunotherapy demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the sexes (I2 = 38%; P = .60). Subgroup analyses according to disease site, line of therapy, class of immunotherapy, study methodology, and representation of women recapitulated these findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Stratified analyses demonstrated no statistically significant association of patient sex with the efficacy of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced cancers using overall survival as the outcome.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.021
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations302
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207