Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128793›Full record

SynthesisMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2018

Patient performance status and cancer immunotherapy efficacy: a meta-analysis.

Melissa Bersanelli, Matteo Brighenti, Sebastiano Buti, Sandro Barni, Fausto Petrelli

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa BersanelliMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126, Parma, Italy. bersamel@libero.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6527-6281
Matteo BrighentiMedical Oncology Unit, ASST Istituti Ospitalieri Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
Sebastiano ButiMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126, Parma, Italy.
Sandro BarniMedical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, BG, Italy.
Fausto PetrelliMedical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Treviglio, BG, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Treviglio · ITUniversity of Parma · ITIstituti Ospitalieri di Cremona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CKIs) are therapeutic weapons in several advanced malignancies. Performance status is a validated prognostic variable in cancer patients; it possibly affects the efficiency of the immune system. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the predictive role of PS toward treatment with CKIs in cancer patients. Following PRISMA guidelines, an electronic search from PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Embase was performed, from the inception of each database to May 31, 2018. Inclusion criteria were (1) randomized trials comparing CKI with standard therapy for the treatment of patients with solid tumors; (2) information on overall survival (OS) according to PS; (3) full text available; and (4) reported in English language. Data were pooled using HRs for OS according to random effect model. The effect of experimental versus control arms was evaluated in PS = 0 and 1-2 subgroups, and the heterogeneity between the two estimates was assessed using an interaction test. The OS differences between PS = 0 and PS = 1-2 strata were evaluated in all studies and according to predefined subgroups. Eighteen studies were eligible, with 11,354 patients [PS = 0 group 5217 patients (46%); PS = 1-2 group 6137 patients (54%)]. The pooled HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.89) in PS = 0 patients. In PS = 1-2 patients, the pooled OS HR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.86). The OS difference between PS = 0 and PS = 1-2 patients treated with CKI was not significant (P = 0.99). CKI improves survival irrespective of patients' PS. PS should not guide treatment choice for anticancer immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Karnofsky Performance StatusAntineoplastic AgentsHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsCancer patientsECOG PSImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMeta-analysisPerformance status

Identifiers

PMID30128793
OpenAlexW2888502795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.