Biomarkers of systemic inflammation/nutritional status have been associated with outcomes in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, most of them were not tested in cohorts of patients treated with ICIs in combination with chemotherapy (CT) (ICI+CT) or with CT alone, making it impossible to discriminate a predictive from a prognostic effect. We conducted a single-center retrospective study to search for associations between various baseline biomarkers/scores that reflected the systemic inflammation/nutritional status (Lung Immune Prognostic Index, Modified Lung Immune Prognostic Index, Scottish Inflammatory Prognostic Score, Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index, EPSILoN, Prognostic Nutritional Index, Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index, Gustave Roussy Immune Score, Royal Marsden Hospital Prognostic Score, Lung Immuno-oncology Prognostic Score 3, Lung Immuno-oncology Prognostic Score 4, score published by Holtzman et al., and Glasgow Prognostic Score) and outcomes in metastatic NSCLC treated in a first-line setting either with ICI in monotherapy (cohort 1; n = 75), ICI + CT (cohort 2; n = 56), or CT alone (cohort 3; n = 221). In the three cohorts, the biomarkers/scores were moderately associated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Their prognostic performance was relatively poor, with a maximum c-index of 0.66. None of them was specific to ICIs and could help to choose the best treatment modality. The systemic inflammation/nutritional status, associated with outcomes independently of the treatment, is therefore prognostic but not predictive in metastatic NSCLC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.