Effect of body mass index and age on survival in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20676 Background: Age and body mass index (BMI) are important factors in patients treated with chemotherapy. However, in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), the importance of these baseline characteristics is unclear. For example, pooled analysis of age did not influence the clinical response to ICI, whereas patients with BMI > 35 had better outcomes in melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. More data are needed to clarify the role of these two characteristics in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients amenable ICI. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated with anti-PD1 ICI for advanced NSCLC at the Dijon Cancer Center (n = 177), University of Montreal University Hospital (n = 106) and Quebec Heart and Lung Institute (n = 98). BMI and age were considered as continuous or categorical variables. Patients’ baseline characteristics were compared using the Chi-squared test. Survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the Log-rank test in a univariate analysis. Multivariate cox regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the groups, adjusting for other clinicopathologic features. Results: Among 381 patients included, the median BMI was 24.5 (range 16.2-43.4) and 32.7% and 13.6% were classified as overweight or obese respectively. The median age was 66 (range 37-89) and 29% were older than 70 years-of-age. Considering BMI and age as continuous or categorical variables, they were not associated with PFS or OS, with the exception of BMI in the Dijon cohort (continuous: HR = 0.95, 95%CI[0.91-0.99]; < 25 vs > 25: HR = 0.68, 95%CI[0.47-0.99]). Subgroup analysis and multivariate cox regression did not reveal significant interaction of these two factors with outcomes. There was no difference in toxicity between the groups. ECOG performance status was the only significant factor in the three cohorts. Conclusions: Unlike previously described in the era of chemotherapy, obesity and age were not associated with outcomes in NSCLC patients treated with ICI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".