Cited by 293Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesT-cell and B-cell Immunology

Comparison of efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between younger and older patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nishijima, Tomohiro F., Muss, Hyman B., Shachar, Shlomit S., Moschos, Stergios J.·2016·Cancer Treatment Reviews

Abstract

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rely on the presence of ongoing immune response to exert their antitumor effect. Little is known whether an age-related decline in immune function negatively influences antitumor response and in so doing diminishes the efficacy of ICIs in elderly subjects. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of ICIs between younger and older patients.Patients and methods PubMed and the ASCO databases were searched up to September 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICIs (ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab) reporting subgroup comparison of overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) based on age cutoffs. The summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.Results A total of 5265 patients from nine RCTs of ICI were included. When patients are dichotomized into younger and older groups with an age cut-off of 65-70 years, ICIs improved OS in both younger (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) and older (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87) groups. An improvement in PFS was observed in younger (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84) and older (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.01) patients. Subgroup analyses according to ICI and tumor type showed a consistent survival benefit in both younger and older groups except for the subgroup of older patients treated in 4 trials of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.41-1.83).Conclusions A benefit in OS with ICIs was significant in both younger and older patients with a cut-off age of 65-70 years.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.02.006

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Anti-PD-1 drugs cause no increased toxicity in elderly patients.

    “with no increased toxicity [155–158].”

    From Immunosenescence: a key player in cancer development (2020) · cites this paper as [158]

  • Anti-PD-1 drugs are effective for both young and elderly patients.

    “A meta-analysis of randomized trials showed that although anti-PD-1 drugs are effective for both young and elderly patients, the risk of death among elderly patients is comparable or improved compared to that of patients subjected to control interventions, with no increased toxicity [155–158].”

    From Immunosenescence: a key player in cancer development (2020) · cites this paper as [158]

  • The risk of death among elderly patients receiving anti-PD-1 drugs is comparable or improved compared to control interventions.

    “the risk of death among elderly patients is comparable or improved compared to that of patients subjected to control interventions, with no increased toxicity [155–158].”

    From Immunosenescence: a key player in cancer development (2020) · cites this paper as [158]

  • In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, response rates of young and old cancer patients were very similar, suggesting that aging does not influence the function of exhausted T cells.

    “In a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab), the response rates of young and old cancer patients were very similar, suggesting that aging does not influence the function of exhausted T cells”

    From Successful and Maladaptive T Cell Aging (2017) · cites this paper as Nishijima et al., 2016

  • A recent meta-analysis analyzed the contextual administration of anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab and ipilimumab) and anti-PD-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) molecules in four settings: melanoma, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and NSCLC.

    “However, a recent meta-analysis analyzed the contextual administration of anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab and ipilimumab) and anti-PD-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) molecules in four different settings: melanoma, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and NSCLC.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nishijima, T. F., Muss, H. B., Shachar, S. S., & Moschos, S. J.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Nishijima, Tomohiro F.
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
45
Pages
30-37
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2288908606
Cited by
293
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 4
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Treatment Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
Keywords
immune checkpoint inhibitors, elderly patients, age-related immune decline, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, PD-1 inhibitors, overall survival, progression-free survival, antitumor immunity, cancer immunotherapy
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aging, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, Humans, Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Disease-Free Survival

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review