Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32749571›Full record

SynthesisCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2020

Pretreatment body mass index and clinical outcomes in cancer patients following immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haizhu Chen, Daquan Wang, Qiaofeng Zhong, Yunxia Tao, Yu Zhou, Yuankai Shi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

6 authors.

Haizhu ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study On Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
Daquan WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Qiaofeng ZhongDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study On Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yunxia TaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study On Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yu ZhouDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study On Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yuankai ShiDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Study On Anticancer Molecular Targeted Drugs, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 Panjiayuan Nanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China. syuankai@cicams.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3342-4964

Funding

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences 2016-I2M-1-001Chinese National Major Project for New Drug Innovation 2017ZX09304015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between pretreatment body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

methodsSystematical searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were carried out. Studies reporting on the association between BMI and outcomes of ICIs were included. The intended outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Quantitative analyses and dose-response meta-analyses were performed under random effect models.

resultsTwenty-two eligible studies involving 5686 cancer patients treated with ICIs were identified. Compared to those with lower BMI, patients with higher BMI obtained a significant benefit on OS (HR = 0.698, 95% CI 0.614-0.794, P < 0.001; I

conclusionHigher BMI is significantly associated with improved outcomes in patients treated with ICIs. Further large-scale prospective research is warranted to better illuminate the association between BMI and outcomes from ICIs.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansNeoplasmsProgression-Free SurvivalSeverity of Illness IndexAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBody mass indexCancer patientsImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMeta-analysisOutcome

Identifiers

PMID32749571
PMCPMC11027469

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.