ArticleCureus2023
A Novel Workflow to Create a Checkpoint Inhibitor Pneumonitis Patient Registry.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interstitial lung disease epidemiology and etiology in patients with solid malignant tumors: a systematic literature review.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis: from pathophysiological window to a precision diagnostic tool.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Despite being a groundbreaking cancer therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can lead to potentially life-threatening toxicity with checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP). While treatable, it is easy for clinicians to miss the symptoms of CIP, which can lead to a delay in diagnosis and worsening respiratory function. There is no consensus approach to systematically identifying patients at risk of developing CIP. Thus, we sought to create a workflow that could inform patient selection for ICI therapy based on previously reported risk factors for CIP development. Materials and methods We retrospectively identified 250 patients with lung cancer treated with at least one dose of an ICI over 20 months. Data were collected on comorbidities, cancer type and stage, performance status, ICI cycles, biomarkers, prior curative treatment, diagnostic evaluation, antibiotics, steroids, progression, and survival. A single-blinded radiologist characterized radiographic patterns of suspected CIP cases. Results Among 97 patients who received steroids while admitted to the hospital, 12 (6%) had at least one sign or symptom suggestive of CIP. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and non-small cell lung cancer subtypes correlated with suspicion of having CIP. CIP was confirmed in five patients (42%) and ruled out (mimics) in seven (58%). Median times until symptoms were 17 months and one month for confirmed and mimic cases, respectively. The median time to confirm or exclude CIP was 5 ± 4 days. Most suspected cases underwent thoracic imaging, blood cultures, and empiric antibiotics. Radiographic patterns in suspected cases included ground glass opacities, organizing pneumonia, acute interstitial pneumonia/acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchiolitis, radiation recall pneumonitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and post-radiation fibrotic changes. Conclusions CIP mimics are common in clinical practice; therefore, it is reasonable to empirically treat suspected cases with shorter courses of steroids until diagnostic clarity is achieved. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that this novel workflow can identify the true incidence of CIP, inform treatment decisions, and lead to the development of implementation studies to improve patient care directly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.