MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920806833 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.28733333

Effects of cannabinoids on immune checkpoint inhibitor response: CCTG pooled analysis of individual patient data

2025· article· en· W6920806833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)CannabinoidAdverse effectDurvalumabCancerCannabisImmune systemChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) benefit patients across various tumor types. ICIs block cancer and T-cell interactions whereas cannabinoids may inhibit T-cell activation, reducing lysis of tumor cells. Interactions between cannabinoid use and dual ICI treatment remain unknown. Individual patient data from 4 Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) trials of patients treated with dual ICI ± chemotherapy (n = 684) were pooled. Cochran – Mantel – Haenszel and log-rank tests (stratified by trial/treatment arms) correlated cannabinoid use with clinicopathologic characteristics, Best Overall Response (BOR)/iBOR per RECIST 1.1/iRECIST, Progression-Free Survival (PFS)/iPFS, Overall Survival (OS) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Sixty-five (9.5%) patients took cannabinoids at any time on trial, 32 (4.7%) of which were using cannabinoids at baseline. By multivariate analysis, cannabinoid use at baseline was significantly associated with improved iPFS (0.05), but not iBOR (p = 0.15), PFS (p = 0.12), OS (p = 0.35) or incidence of grade 1/2 or 3/4 irAEs (p = 0.96 and 0.65 respectively). Results were not significantly different with cannabinoid use at any time on trial. Improved iPFS with cannabinoid use in patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab ± chemotherapy did not translate into OS benefits. This study supports the safe use of cannabinoids in the context of combination ICI therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become an important treatment option for cancer patients and has been associated with improved survival outcomes across various tumor types. Cannabinoids are active components of cannabis and include tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Cannabis use has increased in Canadian cancer patients and is often used for symptom management. Some studies have suggested that cannabinoids can alter the function of the immune system, which could impact the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether cannabinoid use might impact the effectiveness of combination ICI treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (with/without chemotherapy) using data from four clinical trials completed through the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). We found no significant difference in response, survival outcomes or adverse events in patients who used cannabinoids with combination ICI treatment compared to cannabinoid non-users. This study supports the safe use of cannabinoids in the context of combination ICI therapy.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.013
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→