4.7 Review

Association between body mass index and survival outcomes for cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-020-02404-x

关键词

Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Body mass index; Overall survival; Progression-free survival

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81670506]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been increasingly applied in the treatment of several kinds of malignancies. Some clinical demographic characteristics were reported to be associated with the ICIs efficacy. The purpose of our current meta-analysis was to clearly evaluated the relationship between BMI and ICIs efficacy for cancer patients receiving immunotherapy. Methods A systematic search of Pubmed, EMBASE and conference proceedings was performed to investigate the influence of BMI on ICIs efficacy. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs) were analyzed in current study. Results A total of 13 eligible studies comprising 5279 cancer patients treated with ICIs were included in the analysis. The pooled analysis showed there is positive association between high BMI and improved OS and PFS among patients with ICIs treatment (OS: HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.71, P < 0.0001; I-2 = 26.3%, P = 0.202); PFS: HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.61-0.83, P < 0.0001; I-2 = 0%, P = 0.591). There is no significant difference between the incidence of all grade IRAEs between obese, overweight patients and normal patients (Overweight vs Normal: pooled RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.76- 2.18, P = 0.356; Obese vs Normal: pooled RR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.85- 2.17, P = 0.207). Conclusion An improved OS and PFS were observed in patients with high BMI after receiving ICIs treatment compared with patients of low BMI. No significant association between BMI and incidence of IRAEs was found in cancer patients after ICIs treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据