Predicting Immunotherapy Outcomes in Older Patients with Solid Tumors Using the LIPI Score.
LIPI score
aging
immune checkpoint inhibitors
neutrophils
older patients
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Oct 2022
17 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
20
07
2022
revised:
21
09
2022
accepted:
07
10
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
28
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36291861
pii: cancers14205078
doi: 10.3390/cancers14205078
pmc: PMC9600023
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Cancer Treat Rev. 2016 Apr;45:30-7
pubmed: 26946217
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 01;4(3):351-357
pubmed: 29327044
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 20;37(12):992-1000
pubmed: 30785829
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2509-20
pubmed: 26028255
Eur J Cancer. 2020 Apr;129:71-79
pubmed: 32143106
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Sep;82:34-44
pubmed: 28646772
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Sep;14(9):1608-1618
pubmed: 31195179
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Jul;151:211-220
pubmed: 34022698
J Leukoc Biol. 2001 Dec;70(6):881-6
pubmed: 11739550
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Apr 15;23(8):1920-1928
pubmed: 27827313
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):67-76
pubmed: 27939400
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2521-32
pubmed: 25891173
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1543-1552
pubmed: 30193240
Front Physiol. 2013 Aug 16;4:206
pubmed: 23966946
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 27;5:17328
pubmed: 26612583
Cell. 2016 Nov 17;167(5):1398-1414.e24
pubmed: 27863251
ESMO Open. 2021 Feb;6(1):100042
pubmed: 33516147
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Jun;64(2):162-174
pubmed: 32107903
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9
pubmed: 24833586
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 5;373(19):1803-13
pubmed: 26406148
Future Oncol. 2020 Aug;16(23):1659-1664
pubmed: 32783513
Genome Biol. 2017 Jan 26;18(1):18
pubmed: 28126036
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 11;9(12):e115060
pubmed: 25503576
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Jul 1;6(7):1039-1046
pubmed: 32525513
Future Oncol. 2020 Aug;16(23):1665-1668
pubmed: 32422071
J Gerontol. 1990 Mar;45(2):M55-60
pubmed: 1968921
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):e143-e152
pubmed: 28271869
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Nov 15;11(11):
pubmed: 31731749
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Feb;108:88-96
pubmed: 30648633
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 10;13(10):e0204490
pubmed: 30304046
Lancet. 2019 May 4;393(10183):1819-1830
pubmed: 30955977