MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170799867 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253070

Evaluation of liver enzyme elevations and hepatotoxicity in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy

2021· article· en· W3170799867 on OpenAlexaff
Morven Cunningham, Marco Iafolla, Yada Kanjanapan, Orlando Cerocchi, Marcus O. Butler, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard, Kendra Ross, Bettina E. Hansen, Anna Spreafico, Jordan J. Feld

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Liver CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersGenentechServierAstellas PharmaIntercept PharmaceuticalsEMD SeronoMersana TherapeuticsRegeneron PharmaceuticalsArray BioPharmaGilead SciencesPTC TherapeuticsSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineAmgenPfizerMorphoSysCelgeneSymphogenAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCancerGastroenterologyLiver enzymeAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in cancer therapy. Elevated liver enzymes frequently occur in patients treated with ICI but evaluation is poorly described. We sought to better understand causes of liver enzyme elevation, investigation and management. METHODS: Patients treated with anti-PD-1, PDL-1 or CTLA-4 therapy in Phase I/II clinical trials between August 2012 and December 2018 were included. Clinical records of patients with significant liver enzyme elevations were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of 470 ICI-treated patients, liver enzyme elevation occurred in 102 (21.6%), attributed to disease progression (56; 54.9%), other drugs/toxins (7; 6.9%), other causes (22; 21.6%) and ICI immunotoxicity (17; 16.7%; 3.6% of total cohort). Immunotoxicity was associated with higher peak ALT than other causes of enzyme elevation (N = 17; M = 217, 95% CI 145-324 for immunotoxicity, N = 103; M = 74, 95% CI 59-92 for other causes; ratio of means 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.60, p = <0.001) and higher ALT:AST ratio (M = 1.27, 95% CI 0.78-2.06 for immunotoxicity, M = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80 for other causes, ratio of means 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.82, p = 0.004). Immunotoxicity was more often seen in patients with prior CPI exposure (41.2% of immunotoxicity vs 15.9% of patients without, p = 0.01), anti-CTLA-4 -containing ICI treatments (29.4% of immunotoxicity vs 6.8% of patients without, p = <0.001) and other organ immunotoxicity (76.5% of immunotoxicity vs 19.2% of patients without, p = <0.001). Cause for enzyme elevation was established in most patients after non-invasive investigation. Liver biopsy was reserved for four patients with atypical treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Liver enzyme elevation is common in patients receiving ICI, but often has a cause other than immunotoxicity. A biochemical signature with higher ALT and ALT/AST ratio, a history of prior ICI exposure and other organ immunotoxicities may help to identify patients at a higher likelihood of immunotoxicity. Liver biopsy can be safely deferred in most patients. We propose an approach to diagnostic evaluation in patients with liver enzyme elevations following ICI exposure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207