Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291861›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Predicting Immunotherapy Outcomes in Older Patients with Solid Tumors Using the LIPI Score.

Monica Pierro, Capucine Baldini, Edouard Auclin, Hélène Vincent, Andreea Varga, Patricia Martin Romano, Perrine Vuagnat, Benjamin Besse, David Planchard, Antoine Hollebecque and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Prognostic Value of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Second-Line Immunotherapy.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Monica PierroDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0647-3146
Capucine BaldiniDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0604-7614
Edouard AuclinOncology, Hôpital Européen George Pompidou, 75015 Paris, France.
Hélène VincentSenior Unit, Department of Cancer Medecine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Andreea VargaDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Patricia Martin RomanoDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Perrine VuagnatDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Benjamin BesseDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
David PlanchardDepartment of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Antoine HollebecqueDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2869-7551
Stéphane ChampiatDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Aurélien MarabelleDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Jean-Marie MichotDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3482-3331
Christophe MassardDrug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Laura MezquitaSenior Unit, Department of Cancer Medecine, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, 94850 Villejuif, France.
Institut Gustave Roussy · FRHôpital Européen · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) represents a valid therapeutic option in older patients for several solid cancer types. However, most of the data concerning efficacy and adverse events of ICB available are derived from younger and fitter patients. Reliable biomarkers are needed to better select the population that will benefit from ICB especially in older patients who may be at a higher risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with a greater impact on their quality of life. The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is a score that combines pretreatment dNLR (neutrophils/[leukocytes − neutrophils]) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and is correlated with outcomes in patients treated with ICB in non-small-cell lung cancer. We aimed to assess the impact of LIPI in ICB outcomes in a dedicated cohort of older patients. The primary objective was to study the prognostic role of LIPI score in patients aged 70 years or above in a real-life population treated with anti-programmed death-(ligand)1 (anti PD-(L)1). dNLR and LDH were collected in a prospective cohort of patients aged 70 years or above treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors with metastatic disease between June 2014 and October 2017 at Gustave Roussy. LIPI categorizes the population into three different prognostic groups: good (dNLR ≤ 3 and LDH ≤ ULN—upper normal limit), intermediate (dNLR > 3 or LDH > ULN), and poor (dNLR > 3 and LDH > ULN). Anti PD-(L)1 benefit was analyzed according to overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.1. criteria. In the 191 older patients treated, most of them (95%) were ICB-naïve, and 160 (84%) had an ECOG performance status of 0−1 with a median age at ICB treatment of 77 (range, 70−93). The most common tumor types were melanoma (66%) and non-small-cell lung cancer (15%). The median follow-up duration was 18.8 months (95% CI 14.7−24.2). LIPI classified the population into three different groups: 38 (23%) patients had a good LIPI score, 84 (51%) had an intermediate LIPI score, and 43 (26%) had a poor LIPI score. The median OS was 20.7 months [95% CI, 12.6−not reached] compared to 11.2 months [95% CI, 8.41−22.2] and 4.7 months [95% CI, 2.2−11.3] in patients with a good, intermediate, and poor LIPI score, respectively (p = 0.0003). The median PFS was 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.2−18.1] in the good LIPI group, 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.4−13] in the intermediate LIPI group, and 3.9 months [95% CI, 2.3−8.2] in the poor LIPI group (p = 0.09). The rate of early death (OS < 3 months) was 37% in the poor LIPI group compared to 5% in the good LIPI group (<0.001). Poor LIPI score was associated with a poorer outcome in older patients treated with anti PD-(L)1. LIPI is a simple and accessible worldwide tool that can serve as a prognostic factor and can be useful for stratification benefit from ICB.

Indexed as

agingimmune checkpoint inhibitorsLIPI scoreneutrophilsolder patients

Identifiers

PMID36291861
PMCPMC9600023
OpenAlexW4306651447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.