MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188534843 · doi:10.1002/onco.13922

Body Composition as an Independent Predictive and Prognostic Biomarker in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

2021· article· en· W3188534843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dylan J. Martini, Julie M. Shabto, Subir Goyal, Yuan Liu, T. Anders Olsen, Sean T. Evans, Benjamin Magod, Deepak Ravindranathan, Jacqueline T. Brown, Lauren Yantorni, Greta Russler, Sarah Caulfield, Jamie Goldman, Bassel Nazha, Shreyas Joshi, Haydn Kissick, Kenneth Ogan, Wayne Harris, Ömer Küçük, Bradley Curtis Carthon, Viraj A. Master, Mehmet Asım Bilen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWinship Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthSociety for Immunotherapy of CancerNational Cancer InstituteEmory University
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelInternal medicineOncologyBiomarkerBody mass indexRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). There are limited biomarkers for ICI-treated patients with UC. We investigated the association between body composition and clinical outcomes in ICI-treated UC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 70 ICI-treated patients with advanced UC at Winship Cancer Institute from 2015 to 2020. Baseline computed tomography images within 2 months of ICI initiation were collected at mid-L3 and muscle and fat compartments (subcutaneous, intermuscular, and visceral) were segmented using SliceOMatic v5.0 (TomoVision, Magog, Canada). A prognostic body composition risk score (high: 0-1, intermediate: 2-3, or low-risk: 4) was created based on the β coefficient from the multivariate Cox model (MVA) following best-subset variable selection. Our body composition risk score was skeletal muscle index (SMI) + 2 × attenuated skeletal muscle (SM) mean + visceral fat index (VFI). Concordance statistics (C-statistics) were used to quantify the discriminatory magnitude of the predictive model. RESULTS: Most patients (70%) were men and the majority received ICIs in the second- (46%) or third-line (21%) setting. High-risk patients had significantly shorter overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 6.72; p < .001), progression-free survival (HR, 5.82; p < .001), and lower chance of clinical benefit (odds ratio [OR], 0.02; p = .003) compared with the low-risk group in MVA. The C-statistics for our body composition risk group and myosteatosis analyses were higher than body mass index for all clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Body composition variables such as SMI, SM mean, and VFI may be prognostic and predictive of clinical outcomes in ICI-treated patients with UC. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to validate this hypothesis-generating data. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study developed a prognostic body composition risk scoring system using radiographic biomarkers for patients with bladder cancer treated with immunotherapy. The study found that the high-risk patients had significantly worse clinical outcomes. Notably, the study's model was better at predicting outcomes than body mass index. Importantly, these results suggest that radiographic measures of body composition should be considered for inclusion in updated prognostic models for patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with immunotherapy. These findings are useful for practicing oncologists in the academic or community setting, particularly given that baseline imaging is routine for patients starting on treatment with immunotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207