Revisiting the association between skin toxicity and better response in advanced cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) improves survival outcomes for patients with several types of cancer including metastatic melanoma (MM), but serious immune-related adverse events requiring intervention with immunosuppressive medications occur in a subset of patients. Skin toxicity (ST) has been reported to be associated with better response to ICI. However, understudied factors, such as ST severity and potential survivor bias, may influence the strength of these observed associations. METHODS: To examine the potential confounding impact of such variables, we analyzed advanced cancer patients enrolled prospectively in a clinicopathological database with protocol-driven follow up and treated with ICI. We tested the associations between developing ST, stratified as no (n = 617), mild (n = 191), and severe (n = 63), and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in univariable and multivariable analyses. We defined severe ST as a skin event that required treatment with systemic corticosteroids. To account for the possibility of longer survival associating with adverse events instead of the reverse, we treated ST as a time-dependent covariate in an adjusted model. RESULTS: Both mild and severe ST were significantly associated with improved PFS and OS (all P < 0.001). However, when adjusting for the time from treatment initiation to time of skin event, severe ST was not associated with PFS benefit both in univariable and multivariable analyses (P = 0.729 and P = 0.711, respectively). Receiving systemic steroids for ST did not lead to significant differences in PFS or OS compared to patients who did not receive systemic steroids. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reveal the influence of time to event and its severity as covariates in analyzing the relationship between ST and ICI outcomes. These differences in outcomes cannot be solely explained by the use of immunosuppressive medications, and thus highlight the importance of host- and disease-intrinsic factors in determining ICI response and toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The patient data used in this manuscript come from patients who were prospectively enrolled in two institutional review board-approved databases at NYU Langone Health (institutional review board #10362 and #S16-00122).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".