Cited by 218Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFerroptosis and cancer prognosis

Efficacy of PD-1 & PD-L1 inhibitors in older adults: a meta-analysis

Open access
Elias, Rawad, Giobbie-Hurder, Anita, McCleary, Nadine Jackson, Ott, Patrick, Hodi, F. Stephen, Rahma, Osama·2018·Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/PD-L1 pathway demonstrated promising activities in variety of malignancies, however little is known regarding their efficacy in adults aged ≥65 years. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and a study-level meta-analysis to explore efficacy of ICIs based on age, younger vs older than 65 years. We included in this analysis randomized controlled phase II or III studies in patients with metastatic solid tumors that compared efficacy of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors to a non-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. Aggregated estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are based on random/mixed effects (RE) models to allow for heterogeneity between the studies. RESULTS: Initial search identified 53 articles, 17 were randomized controlled trials that compared nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Only 9 trials reported hazard ratiios (HR) for OS based on age and were included in this meta-analysis. Out of those studies seven reported HR for PFS but only 4 studies included subgroup-analysis based on age for PFS. The overall estimated random-effects HR for death was 0.64 with 95% CI of 0.54-0.76 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.68 with 95% CI of 0.61-0.75 in patients < 65 years. The overall estimated random-effects for HR for progression was 0.74 with 95% CI of 0.60-0.92 in patients ≥65 years vs. 0.73 with 95% CI of 0.61-0.88 in patients < 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: PD-1 (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and PD-L1 (atezolizumab) inhibitors had comparable efficacy in adults younger vs ≥ 65 years.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40425-018-0336-8

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 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 [155]

  • 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 [155]

  • 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 [155]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elias, R., Giobbie-Hurder, A., McCleary, N. J., Ott, P., Hodi, F. S., & Rahma, O.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Rahma, Osama
Venue
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-04-04
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
2051-1426 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2796929908
Cited by
218
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 11
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Ferroptosis and cancer prognosis
Keywords
PD-1 inhibitors, PD-L1 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, older adults, age as prognostic factor, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, metastatic solid tumors, overall survival, progression-free survival, immunotherapy efficacy
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological, Aged, Humans, Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, B7-H1 Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor

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