Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36156450›Full record

SynthesisESMO open2022

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in elderly patients: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

C M Kim, J B Lee, S J Shin, J B Ahn, M Lee, H S Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESMO open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Ageing, immune fitness and cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Aging and immunity: the age-old tango.Genes & development · 2025
    Review
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

C M KimYonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul.
J B LeeLung Cancer Clinic, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul.
S J ShinYonsei Cancer Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul.
J B AhnYonsei Cancer Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul.
M LeeBiostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul. Electronic address: MLEE1004@yuhs.ac.
H S KimYonsei Cancer Center, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul; Graduate School of Medical Science, Brain Korea 21 Project, Severance Biomedical Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: modeerfhs@yuhs.ac.
Yonsei University · KRSeverance Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has improved patient survival in advanced cancers; however, the efficacy of ICIs in elderly patients is still elusive. This study assessed the efficacy of ICIs in elderly patients with advanced cancer in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe carried out a systematic review and identified 30 head-to-head phase II/III randomized controlled trials that compared immunotherapy with the standard of care in advanced solid tumor patients. The data on patients younger or over 65 years of age were indexed from PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Scopus and obtained for meta-analysis. The subgroup analyses were stratified by primary tumor type, line of treatment, or type of immunotherapy, and a meta-regression analysis was carried out after adjusting for all other variables.

resultsThe study included 17 476 patients, comprising 58% (10 119) younger (<65 years old) and 42% (7357) elderly (≥65 years old) patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.85] and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.85) in the younger and elderly groups, respectively, suggesting similar efficacies of ICIs in these two age groups. The subgroup analyses revealed no significant relationship between age and treatment outcomes, except for the PFS benefit in younger patients with melanoma than in elderly patients (HR 0.44 in younger patients versus 0.65 in elderly patients, P = 0.04). These results were further supported by meta-regression analysis, which showed no statistically significant difference in OS (P = 0.954) and PFS (P = 0.555) between the two age groups.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that age-associated impairments of the immune system did not affect the efficacy of ICIs in elderly patients compared to younger patients. Therefore, the choice of ICIs for elderly patients can be considered, regardless of chronological age.

Indexed as

Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsMelanomaAgedHumansImmunologic FactorsImmunotherapyTreatment OutcomeImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunologic Factorsageimmunosenescenceimmunotherapymeta-analysismeta-regression

Identifiers

PMID36156450
PMCPMC9588901
OpenAlexW4296904710

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.