MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386917562 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1285031

Editorial: Editor's challenge: Dr. Luciano Mutti - what is the true impact of ICIs on survival in the treatment of thoracic malignancies?

2023· editorial· en· W4386917562 on OpenAlexaff
Luciano Mutti, Steven G. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility that the human immune system can act to prevent cancer was first proposed in 1909 by Ehrlich and is often described as immune-surveillance) (1). One of the evasion mechanisms utilized by cancer cells involves the expression a series of surface regulatory markers (called checkpoint molecules) that prevent the activation of immune system responses. This has led to the development of what are called immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which are now a mainstay therapy in the treatment of many cancers including thoracic malignancies (2). Despite the development of these agents, they are not completely effective and many patients either fail to respond to ICIs (3, 4), initially respond but subsequently relapse, developing ICI resistance (5), or develop immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (6).In this topic we asked the research community whether ICIs in their present form have a true impact on patient survival. A study by Ravi Salgia and colleagues examined the impact of irAEs on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient survival, and explored if prior treatment with tyrosine receptor kinases (TKIs) played a role in patient responses, and found that indeed patients experiencing an irAE were found to have a significantly longer OS and PFS compared to patients who did not (7). It must be noted that this analysis is based off a single institution, and larger cross-institutional studies will be required to confirm this interesting finding. Reliable biomarkers for ICI therapy remain a core challenge for patient stratification (8), and a new candidate biomarker based on mutations in the tumor suppressor RB1 was described by Wang et al (9). In this study mutated RB1 was associated with poor responses to ICI outperforming both tumor mutational burden (TMB) and PD-L1 positivity. Again the study was limited to a single institution and will require further validation.Systematic reviews are helping to assess ICI efficacy and identify new options for more effective patient stratification or treatment. Mao and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on histological subtypes of NSCLC (Squamous versus non-Squamous) to see if these subtypes had any effect on efficacy or outcome (10). From an analysis of 40 clinical trials this study was able to conclude that both histologies benefited from ICI therapy (either as monotherapy or combinatorial therapy), and also demonstrated that under combinatorial therapy non-squamous patients derived more significant survival benefit. In a similar fashion, Molina and colleagues conducted a systematic review in NSCLC to assess clinicopathological and bio-molecular features that affected survival upon treatment with ICIs (11). From an analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) the authors identified wild-type EGFR, high PD-L1 expression, and high blood-based TMB (bTMB) as features associated with a significant OS benefit from ICI therapy, whereas unmutated EGFR, low PD-L1 expression, or low bTMB did not demonstrate any clear OS benefit. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the observed OS benefit was achieved regardless of regardless of sex, age, ECOG PS, histology, smoking history, baseline brain metastasis, race, or region. These results effective confirm PD-L1 and high TMB as effective biomarkers for ICI therapy, and suggest that non-mutated EGFR be considered as part of the treatment algorithm for ICI therapy. Whilst PD-L1 positivity is normally required for ICI therapy in NSCLC, it is well established that a subset of patients with negative PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 < 1%) show objective responses to ICI (12, 13). Li et al conducted a network meta-analysis to assess whether such patients derive better benefit from chemotherapy combined with antiangiogenic versus chemotherapy combined with ICIs as no head-to-head clinical trials comparing the two exist (14). Their analysis suggests that for patients with advanced NSCLC with negative PD-L1 expression, combinations of chemotherapy plus ICI provide the best benefit. The field of immunotherapy is still young, and the data presented in this special topic suggests that whilst it remains increasingly clear that ICIs display clear survival benefit in thoracic malignancy, more research will be required to truly define their long-term impact on patient survival.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0180.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.016

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207