Predicting response and toxicity to immune checkpoint inhibitors using routinely available blood and clinical markers

Ashley M Hopkins1,2, Andrew Rowland1,2, Ganessan Kichenadasse1

  • 1Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, Adelaide, South Australia 5042, Australia.

British Journal of Cancer
|September 27, 2017
PubMed

Insights

Predicting patient response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is crucial. This study explores easily accessible blood and clinical markers to identify non-responders and those experiencing adverse effects, aiming for cost-effective integration into cancer care.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Immunology
  • Biomarker Research

Background:

  • Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) represent a significant advancement in treating advanced cancers.
  • However, a considerable number of patients do not respond to ICI therapy or discontinue treatment due to adverse effects.
  • Identifying predictive markers is essential for optimizing patient selection and treatment outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate routinely available blood and clinical markers for predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in cancer patients.
  • To assess the potential of these markers for cost-effective integration into clinical practice.
  • To address inconsistencies in previous research by exploring broader applications and multivariable models.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature on blood and clinical markers associated with ICI response.
  • Analysis of markers such as leukocyte counts, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein.
  • Exploration of preliminary evidence for other cancer types, ICIs, and multivariable prediction models.

Main Results:

  • Several routinely available markers, including leukocyte counts, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein, have shown promise in predicting ICI response.
  • Inconsistencies in results across studies are attributed to small sample sizes, varied follow-up times, and marker assessment variability.
  • Emerging evidence suggests potential for markers in diverse cancer types and combination with other ICIs.

Conclusions:

  • Routinely available blood and clinical markers hold promise for predicting ICI response and guiding treatment decisions.
  • Further validation and multivariable modeling are needed to overcome current inconsistencies and enhance clinical utility.
  • Validated markers could enable cost-effective, personalized cancer therapy selection.

Related Concept Videos