Cited by 155Inflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

Eosinophilic count as a biomarker for prognosis of melanoma patients and its importance in the response to immunotherapy

Moreira, Alvaro, Leisgang, Waltraud, Schuler, Gerold, Heinzerling, Lucie·2017·Immunotherapy

Abstract

AIM: The prognostic role of eosinophils in cancer has been controversial. Some entities such as gastrointestinal cancers show a better survival, while others such as Hodgkin's lymphoma a worse survival in patients with eosinophilia. Patients who exhibited an increase in eosinophils upon therapy with ipilimumab or pembrolizumab were shown to survive longer. We wanted to investigate whether eosinophilia is a prognostic marker in metastatic melanoma. METHODS: In total, 173 patients with metastatic melanoma from our data base (median age 60 years; n = 86 with immunotherapy, n = 87 without immunotherapy) were analyzed for eosinophil counts and survival over the course of 12 years. Eosinophilic count was detected by peripheral blood smear. The ethical committee had approved this retrospective study. RESULTS: Melanoma patients with eosinophilia at any point in their course of disease show a trend toward longer survival independently of their therapy. There is a statistically significant difference for the patients who survive at least 12 months (p < 0.005). In patients with checkpoint inhibitor therapy, survival was significantly prolonged in every patient with eosinophilia (p < 0.05). Furthermore, 69% of the patients treated with immunotherapy experienced at least once an eosinophilia of 5% or greater compared with 46% in the immunotherapy naive-group; for an eosinophilia of 10% values were 30 and 9%, respectively. Interestingly, in patients with more than 20% eosinophils (n = 7) survival was prolonged with a median of 35 months (range 19-60 months) as compared with 16 months (range 1-117 months). CONCLUSION: Eosinophilia is a prognostic marker in patients with metastatic melanoma.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/imt-2016-0138

Cites

32 of 32 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moreira, A., Leisgang, W., Schuler, G., & Heinzerling, L.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Venue
Immunotherapy
Published
2017-01-27
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
115-121
ISSN
  • 1750-743X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-7448
OpenAlex
W2581911737
Cited by
147
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Immunotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Inflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
eosinophilia, eosinophil count, metastatic melanoma, prognostic factors, survival, immune checkpoint inhibitors, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, blood eosinophils
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Animals, Cell Count, Eosinophils, Female, Humans, Immunotherapy, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Survival Analysis, Young Adult

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