Sarcopenia and Visceral Adiposity Did Not Affect Efficacy of Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor Monotherapy for Pretreated Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the association of computed tomography (CT)-assessed sarcopenia and visceral adiposity with efficacy and prognosis of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We retrospectively collected 74 patients with pretreated NSCLC who had initiated programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor monotherapy between December 2015 and November 2018 at our hospital. As CT-assessed pretreatment markers, we used psoas muscle index (PMI), intramuscular adipose tissue content (IMAC), visceral-to-subcutaneous ratio (VSR) and visceral fat area (VFA) at lumbar vertebra L3 level. We divided 74 patients into high and low groups according to each Japanese sex-specific cut-off value. Using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests, we compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Adjusted by serum albumin, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, performance status and driver mutations, multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses evaluated various variables as independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS. RESULTS: We could not find significant difference in response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) between low and high groups according to any factors. The OS of patients with body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 was significantly shorter than that of patients with BMI ≥ 18.5 (median 3.3 vs. 15.8 months, P < 0.01), while there was no significant difference in OS and PFS according to PMI, IMAC, VSR and VFA. Multivariate analyses detected no significant prognostic factor in OS and PFS, except for low IMAC (hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.18 - 0.998, P = 0.0496) as a favorable prognostic factor of longer OS. CONCLUSIONS: Neither PMI nor VSR, VFA might be a significant prognostic factor of PFS and OS of ICI monotherapy for pretreated NSCLC. According to our multivariate analyses, IMAC was a significant prognostic factor of OS, but not of PFS. Thus, neither sarcopenia nor visceral adiposity may be associated with the efficacy of ICI therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".