Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34922299›Full record

ReviewESMO open2022

First-line immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG performance status 2: results of an International Expert Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology.

C Gridelli, S Peters, T Mok, P M Forde, M Reck, I Attili, F de Marinis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO open, 2022. 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. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Sotorasib in AdvancedJTO clinical and research reports · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy for patients with head and neck cancer: can comorbidity risk scores predict outcome?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  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

7 authors.

C GridelliDivision of Medical Oncology, 'S.G. Moscati' Hospital, Avellino, Italy. Electronic address: cgridelli@libero.it.
S PetersDepartment of Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
T MokState Key Laboratory in Translational Oncology, Department of Clinical Oncology Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, P. R. China.
P M FordeSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
M ReckLungenClinic, Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany.
I AttiliDivision of Thoracic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
F de MarinisDivision of Thoracic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsA virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting.

resultsAll panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses.

conclusionsBased on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsHumansImmunologic FactorsImmunotherapyProspective StudiesImmunologic Factorsconsensusimmune checkpoint inhibitorsNSCLCperformance status 2

Identifiers

PMID34922299
PMCPMC8689080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.