MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of age and frailty on acute care use during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment: A population-based study.

2022· article· en· W4281727461 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lawson Eng, Rinku Sutradhar, Yosuf Kaliwal, Yue Niu, Ning Liu, Ying Liu, Melanie Powis, Geoffrey Liu, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineIpilimumabPopulationEmergency departmentRetrospective cohort studyComorbidityCohortInternal medicineCancerAdverse effectEmergency medicineImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12002 Background: ICIs are a common therapeutic option across solid tumors. However, older adults were poorly represented in clinical trials evaluating ICIs, especially those who are very old or frail. Although ICIs are better tolerated than chemotherapy, some patients develop immune related adverse events (irAEs) that may require hospitalization. We performed a population-level retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of age and frailty among older adults on acute care use and irAE related hospitalizations. Methods: We used administrative data deterministically linked across databases to identify a cohort of cancer patients > 65 years of age receiving ICIs from June 2012 to October 2018 in Ontario, Canada and obtained data on socio-demographic and clinical covariates, and acute care utilization. Acute care use was defined as an emergency department visit or hospitalization from initiation to 120 days after the last ICI dose; hospitalizations were classified as irAE related based on ICD-10 codes. Frailty was assessed using the McIsaac Frailty Index. Multivariable competing risk analyses with Fine Gray subdistribution hazards evaluated the impact of age and frailty on both acute care use and irAE hospitalizations adjusted for sex, rurality, BMI, autoimmune history, hospitalization within 60 days prior to starting ICI and comorbidity score. Results: Among 2737 patients, median age 73 (18% age > 80, 50% age 70-79); 43% received Nivolumab, 41% Pembrolizumab and 13% Ipilimumab; 53% had lung cancer, 34% melanoma. 70% were robust, 26% pre-frail and 4% frail. Most patients (1962; 72%) had an acute care episode during the window, while 212 (8%) had an irAE hospitalization. Older age was associated with reduced risk of being hospitalized due to an irAE when measured as a continuous variable (aHR 0.97 per year [0.95-0.99] p = 0.01). Older adults, age > 80 years were also less likely to be hospitalized due to an irAE (age 70-79 vs 65-69, aHR 0.92 [0.66-1.27] p = 0.61, age > 80 vs 65-69, aHR 0.63 [0.39-1.01] p = 0.05). Age was not associated with acute care use as a continuous or categorical variable. Increasing frailty was associated with increased risk of acute care use during ICI treatment (pre-frail vs robust, aHR 1.20 [1.07-1.36] p = 0.003; frail vs robust, aHR 1.45 [1.12-1.86] p = 0.004) but was not associated with irAE hospitalizations. When evaluating both age and frailty in the same model, the identified associations remained significant. Conclusions: Among older adults receiving ICIs, age was not associated with acute care use but may be associated with reduced risk of experiencing an irAE related hospitalization. In contrast, frailty was associated with risk of acute care use but was not associated with risk of an irAE related hospitalization. Age and frailty may need to be considered independently when evaluating their use as potential factors influencing toxicity risk among older adults receiving ICIs.

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 score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→