MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005951584 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12538

Body composition is prognostic and predictive of ipilimumab activity in metastatic melanoma

2020· article· en· W3005951584 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Chu, Yuetong Li, Sunita Ghosh, Shelley Sass, Michael Smylie, John Walker, Michael B. Sawyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabHazard ratioInternal medicineMelanomaProportional hazards modelMultivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyClinical endpointMetastatic melanomaResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyGastroenterologyImmunotherapyCancerPhases of clinical researchConfidence intervalClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Body composition is minimally investigated in an immunotherapy era. Specific body composition signals such as myosteatosis may reflect aspects of patients' immunology and thereby their ability to respond to immunotherapies. Ipilimumab is a key checkpoint inhibitor in metastatic melanoma. As an antibody, it may also be more accurately dosed using body composition parameters rather than weight alone. This retrospective study aimed to investigate body composition‐based dosing and outcomes. Methods Pretreatment computed tomography images from metastatic melanoma, ipilimumab‐treated patients from 2009 to 2014 were used to measure myosteatosis [skeletal muscle radiographic density or SMD, in Hounsfield units (HU)] and surface area (cm2) as previously described. Cut point analysis determined whether a level of ipilimumab dose and myosteatosis demonstrated differences in progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rates and toxicities. Results Of 121 identified, 97 patients were evaluable. Baseline demographics included 56 years median age, 60% male participants, and 23.7% with BRAF mutations. SMD analysis identified cut‐offs of SMD < 42 in those with BMI < 25 kg/m2 and <20 HU in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, respectively. Low SMD patients had poorer median PFS [2.4 vs. 2.7 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, P = 0.008] and OS (5.4 vs. 17.5 months, HR 2.47, P = 0.001), which remained significant in multivariate modelling. High SMD patients had more immune‐related adverse events, better objective response rates (17.9 vs. 3.3%, P = 0.051), and lower baseline neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (21 vs. 39%, P = 0.049). Separately, patients receiving <2.03 mg/cm2 had improved median PFS (3.0 vs. 2.6 months, HR 1.88, P = 0.02) and OS (14.9 vs. 5.7 months, HR 1.98, P = 0.01). Conclusions Low SMD and receiving >2.03 mg/cm2 are prognostic of poorer melanoma outcomes post ipilimumab. SMD may identify patients with flawed immunology and predict who may better respond to such therapy. Ipilimumab dosing by skeletal muscle index stands in contrast to weight‐based dosing and may demonstrate a more accurate method of antibody dosing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207