Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2021 Nov 4;7(12):1–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4971

Uptake and Survival Outcomes Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Among Trial-Ineligible Patients With Advanced Solid Cancers

Ravi B Parikh 1,2,3,4,5,6,✉, Eun Jeong Min 7, E Paul Wileyto 8, Fauzia Riaz 9,10, Cary P Gross 10, Roger B Cohen 2,3, Rebecca A Hubbard 8, Qi Long 3,8, Ronac Mamtani 1,2,3,4,5
PMCID: PMC8569600  PMID: 34734979

Key Points

Question

What are the uptake and survival outcomes following immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy among patients with advanced solid cancers who are traditionally ineligible for clinical trials because of poor performance status or organ dysfunction?

Findings

In this cohort study of 34 131 patients with cancer, trial ineligibility was associated with a greater likelihood of ICI monotherapy use compared with non-ICI therapy. Among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between treatment with ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, and non-ICI therapy.

Meaning

The study results suggest that positive results for ICI therapy in phase 3 trials may not translate to patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction who are traditionally ineligible for such trials.

Abstract

Importance

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are part of standard of care for patients with many advanced solid tumors. Patients with poor performance status or organ dysfunction are traditionally ineligible to partake in pivotal randomized clinical trials of ICIs.

Objective

To assess ICI use and survival outcomes among patients with advanced cancers who are traditionally trial ineligible based on poor performance status or organ dysfunction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 280 predominantly community oncology practices in the US and included 34 131 patients (9318 [27.3%] trial ineligible) who initiated first-line systemic therapy from January 2014 through December 2019 for newly diagnosed metastatic or recurrent nontargetable non–small cell lung, urothelial cell, renal cell, or hepatocellular carcinoma. Data analysis was performed from December 1, 2019, to June 1, 2021.

Exposures

Trial ineligibility (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 or the presence of kidney or liver dysfunction); first-line systemic therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The association between trial ineligibility and ICI monotherapy uptake was assessed using inverse probability–weighted (IPW) logistic regressions. The comparative survival outcomes following ICI and non-ICI therapy among trial-ineligible patients were assessed using treatment IPW survival analyses. Because we observed nonproportional hazards, we reported 12-month and 36-month restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) and time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of less than 6 months and 6 months or greater.

Results

Among the overall cohort (n = 34 131), the median (IQR) age was 70 (62-77) years; 23 586 (69%) were White individuals, and 14 478 (42%) were women. Over the study period, the proportion of patients receiving ICI monotherapy increased from 0% to 30.2% among trial-ineligible patients and 0.1% to 19.4% among trial-eligible patients. Trial ineligibility was associated with increased ICI monotherapy use (IPW-adjusted odds ratio compared with non-ICI therapy, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.7-1.9). Among trial-ineligible patients, there were no overall survival differences between ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, and non-ICI therapy at 12 months (RMST, 7.8 vs 7.7 vs 8.1 months) or 36 months (RMST, 15.0 vs 13.9 vs 14.4 months). Compared with non-ICI therapy, ICI monotherapy showed evidence of early harm (IPW-adjusted HR within 6 months, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2) but late benefit (adjusted HR among patients who survived 6 months, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.8).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, compared with trial-eligible patients, trial-ineligible patients with advanced cancers preferentially received first-line ICI therapy. A survival difference was not detected between ICI and non-ICI therapies among trial-ineligible patients. Positive results for ICI in phase 3 trials may not translate to this vulnerable population.

This cohort study examines immune checkpoint inhibitor use and survival outcomes among patients with advanced cancers who are traditionally trial ineligible based on poor performance status or organ dysfunction.

Introduction

Since 2015, several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have received first-line approval as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic therapy for treating advanced solid tumors.1,2 Use of ICIs is associated with improved survival in many advanced cancers, including non–small cell lung (NSCLC), urothelial cell (UCC), renal cell (RCC), and hepatocellular (HCC) carcinoma. This survival benefit is driven by durable long-term survival in a subset of patients, including patients with high expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) or tumor mutational burden.3,4,5,6,7,8 Generally, ICI therapy has a favorable adverse effect profile in these cancers.9,10,11,12 In contrast, non-ICI therapies, including cytotoxic chemotherapies or antiangiogenic therapy, are associated with high rates of toxic effects and treatment-related discontinuation.13,14,15,16,17,18,19

Because of their favorable toxic effect profile, ICIs may be preferentially used rather than non-ICI therapies for patients with poor performance status (PS) or liver or kidney dysfunction.20,21,22 However, patients with poor PS or organ dysfunction are largely excluded from all pivotal randomized clinical trials of ICIs, despite comprising 50% of patients with advanced cancer.21,22,23,24 Use of ICIs in trial-ineligible patients has been termed desperation oncology in the lay press.25 Thus, it is critical to understand the magnitude of use and effectiveness of ICIs in this vulnerable population.

In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the use and comparative overall survival outcomes following first-line ICI and non-ICI therapy among trial-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced solid tumors. We studied 4 representative metastatic solid tumors with established indications for first-line ICI and non-ICI treatments: NSCLC, UCC, RCC, and HCC. We hypothesized that trial-ineligible patients would be more likely to receive ICI monotherapy than trial-eligible patients and that ICI monotherapy and combination therapy would not be associated with a survival benefit compared with non-ICI therapy among trial-ineligible patients.

Methods

The study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board with a waiver of informed consent owing to the use of deidentified retrospective data. The study followed Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Data Source

We used data from the nationwide, deidentified longitudinal electronic health record (EHR)–derived Flatiron Health database. Data originated from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care), most being community oncology settings. Deidentified patient-level data included structured and unstructured data, such as clinician notes and pathology reports, all of which were curated via technology-enabled abstraction, as described previously.26,27 Data from unstructured EHR-derived digital documents were manually reviewed by centrally managed and trained medical record abstractors using specifically defined abstraction protocols.28,29,30,31

Study Sample

The study sample selected patients with a new diagnosis of metastatic or recurrent NSCLC, UCC, RCC, and HCC. Patients were 18 years or older and initiated treatment with first-line systemic therapy for advanced disease between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. We excluded patients who had no evidence of structured EHR activity within 90 days of diagnosis or who received a diagnosis after December 31, 2019. We also excluded patients who did not receive systemic therapy, had a targetable driver variation, received first-line agents as part of a randomized clinical trial, received first-line agents that were not listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for systemic therapy of advanced NSCLC, UCC, RCC, or HCC, or were missing demographic data (eFigure 1 in the Supplement).32,33,34,35

Exposures and Variable Definitions

To first assess ICI use, the exposure of interest was trial ineligibility. To define trial ineligibility, we used common exclusion criteria from phase 3 clinical trials of ICI agents: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 2 or greater,36,37 or the presence of organ dysfunction. Organ dysfunction was adapted from the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5,38 and defined as having a diagnosis code for liver dysfunction (eTable 1 in the Supplement), estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, or total bilirubin levels of less than 3 mg/dL (to convert to μmol/L, multiply by 17.104). Trial ineligibility criteria were defined using a 60-day lookback window from the date of first-line therapy initiation. A patient who met either criterion was classified as trial ineligible; all other patients were classified as trial eligible.

To assess the comparative overall survival among trial-ineligible patients, the exposure of interest was treatment, which was categorized as ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or non-ICI therapy (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy was defined as 1 or more ICIs without non-ICI therapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy was defined as 1 or more ICIs in combination with non-ICI therapy.

Outcomes

To assess ICI use, the primary outcome was receipt of first-line ICI monotherapy. To assess ICI comparative survival outcomes, the primary outcome was overall survival (OS) from the initiation of first-line treatment to date of death.39 Follow-up was terminated at the first of the following dates: date of death, December 31, 2019, or last structured EHR activity (eg, laboratory draw, chemotherapy administration, or outpatient clinical encounter).

Covariates

We selected the following 9 covariates as potentially contributing to ICI use and OS for use in inverse probability–weighted (IPW) analyses: cancer type (NSCLC, UCC, RCC, and HCC), age at metastatic diagnosis, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, year of diagnosis, insurance type, practice type (community vs academic), use of opioid pain medication, and use of corticosteroids at the time of diagnosis but before treatment. The latter 2 covariates are surrogates of symptomatic or high-volume disease, and early corticosteroid use is associated with poorer outcomes while receiving ICI therapy.40

Statistical Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to compare cohort characteristics between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible groups and among all treatment groups. We used multiple imputation to impute missing PS and laboratory data (see the eMethods in the Supplement for details on imputation).41 To address systematic differences between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible cohorts and between all treatment groups, we used IPW analyses. We used generalized boosted models to fit 2 propensity score models using all 9 covariates.42,43 The first model predicted the probability of a patient being trial ineligible; the second predicted the probability of a patient receiving ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, or non-ICI therapy. The postweighting balance in covariates was evaluated using standardized mean differences (SMDs); SMDs greater than 0.1 indicated a covariate imbalance.44 To test the hypothesis that first-line ICI monotherapy is used more often for trial-ineligible compared with trial-eligible patients, we used an IPW multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of receiving ICI monotherapy compared with non-ICI therapy. To assess the heterogeneity of this association, secondary analyses fit separate IPW models for each of the 4 cancer subcohorts.

To test the hypothesis that, among trial-ineligible patients, there was no survival difference between treatment groups, we used IPW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves; IPW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with a time-varying coefficient, which allowed for different effects before and after 6 months; and restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) at 12 and 36 months to compare median OS from first-line treatment initiation (eMethods in the Supplement).45 In a sensitivity analysis to assess the degree of potential unmeasured confounding, we calculated E-values based on point estimates before and after 6 months to quantify the minimum strength of association (on the risk ratio scale) between a confounder and the exposure and outcome needed to nullify the observed exposure-outcome association.46 In another sensitivity analysis to identify whether associations differed by cohort definition criteria, we repeated survival analyses that defined trial ineligibility as an ECOG PS of 2 or greater or organ dysfunction. Finally, to further account for granular differences in PS, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using ECOG PS (0-4) as a continuous covariate in the propensity score.

In an exploratory analysis, we repeated survival analyses among individuals with advanced NSCLC who had a recorded PD-L1 expression level within 60 days of first-line therapy initiation, which was stratified by PD-L1 test status (high vs low expression). Programmed cell death ligand 1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry; high vs low expression was defined using a threshold of PD-L1 staining of 50% or more of tumor cells or a PD-L1–stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells covering 10% or more of the tumor area. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided, α = .05, and analyses were conducted between December 1, 2019, and June 1, 2021, using R (version 4.0.2; R Foundation).

Results

Baseline Characteristics of the Total Cancer Cohort

The overall cohort (n = 34 131) consisted of 26 904 patients (78.8%) with advanced NSCLC, 3382 (9.9%) with UCC, 3323 (9.7%) with RCC, and 522 (1.5%) with HCC. The median (IQR) age was 70 (62-77) years; 23 586 (69%) were White individuals, and 14 478 (42%) were women. A total of 9318 patients (27.3%) were trial ineligible, of whom 6570 (71%) had an ECOG PS of 2 or greater and 3416 (37%) had organ dysfunction (eTable 3 in the Supplement). Before imputation, PS was coded for 17 340 patients (50.8%); there were no appreciable differences in other baseline characteristics before or after imputation (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Unweighted baseline characteristics were similar between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible individuals (SMD <0.10), with 3 exceptions: trial-ineligible patients were older (median [IQR] age, 71 [63-78] vs 68 [61-75] years), less likely to have NSCLC (76% vs 80%), and less likely to have commercial insurance (33% vs 38%). After IPW, baseline characteristics were similar between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible individuals.

ICI Treatment Use in Trial-Eligible and Trial-Ineligible Patients

In the total cohort, 4961 patients (14.5%) received first-line ICI monotherapy, 3982 (11.7%) received ICI combination therapy, and 25 188 (73.8%) received non-ICI therapy. Over time, the proportion of patients who received ICI monotherapy increased from 0.0% to 30.2% in trial-ineligible individuals and 0.1% to 19.4% in trial-eligible individuals (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). By the last quarter of 2019, 109 (23.9%) patients with NSCLC, 25 (52.9%) patients with UCC, 42 (55.8%) patients with RCC, and 1 (13.3%) patient with HCC who were trial ineligible received first-line ICI-monotherapy (Figure 1). Trial ineligibility was associated with greater use of ICI monotherapy compared with non-ICI therapy (IPW-adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.70-1.92). The magnitude of the association was strongest among patients with NSCLC (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.80-2.10) and UCC (aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 2.11-2.92), while a significant association was not found among patients with RCC (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.43) and HCC (aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.97-3.27) (eTable 5 in the Supplement).

Figure 1. Trends in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Monotherapy Use Over Time by Cancer Among Trial-Eligible and Trial-Ineligible Populations.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Dashed lines indicate LOESS (locally estimated scatterplot smoothing) smoothed lines, a nonparametric strategy to fit smooth curves to time series data, to visualize trends in ICI monotherapy use. Individual points connected by solid lines indicate observed quarterly trends in ICI use. Time, quarter numbers along the x-axes refer to years 2014 through 2019, quarters 1 and 3 in each year.

ICI Treatment Effectiveness in Trial-Ineligible Patients

In the trial-ineligible cohort, the median (IQR) follow-up was 7.8 (3.4-16.5) months. During follow-up, there were 6726 deaths (1331 in the ICI monotherapy group, 503 ICI in the combination therapy group, and 4912 in the non-ICI group). After IPW, baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups (eTable 6 in the Supplement). Inverse probability weighting–adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves are illustrated in the total cohort in Figure 2. Median OS was 9.72 months for ICI monotherapy, 9.33 months for ICI combination therapy, and 8.75 months for non-ICI therapy (Table). During the first 6 months after treatment, ICI monotherapy (IPW-adjusted HR [aHR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.27) and ICI combination therapy (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) were associated with higher mortality compared with non-ICI therapy. In contrast, among patients who survived 6 months after treatment initiation, subsequent mortality was lower for ICI monotherapy (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84) and similar for ICI combination therapy (aHR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). The RMSTs were similar among ICI monotherapy, ICI combination therapy, and non-ICI therapy groups at 12 months (aHR, 7.8; 95% CI, 7.7-7.9 vs 7.8; 95% CI, 7.6-7.9 vs 8.1; 95% CI, 8.0-8.2 months, respectively) and 36 months (aHR, 15.0; 95% CI, 14.5-15.4 vs 13.9; 95% CI, 13.1-14.7 vs 14.4; 95% CI, 14.1-14.8 months, respectively). For trial-ineligible patients with NSCLC, UCC, and HCC, ICI monotherapy was associated with higher mortality during the first 6 months after treatment (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23; 1.63; 95% CI, 1.36-1.95; and 2.53; 95% CI, 1.75-3.65, respectively) but lower subsequent mortality among patients who survived 6 months (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; and 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, respectively) compared with non-ICI therapy (eTable 7 in the Supplement). In HCC, ICI combination therapy was associated with higher mortality before (aHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.67-3.66) and after (aHR, 11.2; 95% CI, 1.34-93.36) 6 months. In RCC, there were no significant differences in mortality between treatment groups. The E-values (relative risk) for the point estimates for mortality were 1.51 (<6 months) and 1.92 (≥6 months) for ICI monotherapy and 1.49 (<6 months) and 1.16 (≥6 months) for ICI combination therapy. The RMSTs were similar among treatment groups at 12 and 36 months when using alternate definitions of trial ineligibility (eTable 8 in the Supplement) and incorporating ECOG PS values in the propensity score (eTable 9 in the Supplement).

Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier Curves of Overall Survival Among Trial-Ineligible Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Numbers in the table represent number of patients remaining at risk at each point in each treatment group. Shaded colors represent 95% CIs for each treatment. ICI indicates immune checkpoint inhibitor.

Table. Survival Outcomes in Trial-Ineligible Cohorta.

Characteristic ICI therapy
Monotherapy Combination None
Patients, No. 1967 805 6547
OS (95% CI)
Median OS, mo 9.72 9.33 8.75
Hazard ratio, mob
<6 1.19 (1.11-1.27) 1.14 (1.08-1.22) 1 [Reference]
≥6 0.80 (0.74-0.84) 1.00 (0.89-1.13) 1 [Reference]
RMST (95% CI), mo
12 7.79 (7.66-7.92) 7.76 (7.59-7.89) 8.12 (7.99-8.22)
36 15.0 (14.5-15.4) 13.9 (13.1-14.7) 14.4 (14.1-14.8)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitor; OS, overall survival; RMST, restricted mean survival time.

a

All values are averaged across 10 imputed data sets after inverse probability weighting.

b

Hazard ratios refer to inverse probability weighting–adjusted hazard ratios, adjusted for all covariates, compared with non-ICI therapy.

Exploratory Stratified Analyses

Among patients with NSCLC who had a reported PD-L1 expression (n = 3459), 2498 (72%) had PD-L1 high-expressing tumors and 961 (28%) had PD-L1 low-expressing tumors. Among patients with high and low PD-L1 expression, ICI monotherapy was associated with higher early mortality compared with non-ICI therapy during the first 6 months after therapy (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.36-2.45 and 2.09; 95% CI, 1.32-3.31, respectively). There was no benefit for ICI monotherapy among patients who survived longer than 6 months after therapy (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19 and 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42, respectively) (eTable 10 in the Supplement).

Discussion

In this population-based study of patients with advanced solid tumors, overall use of first-line ICI monotherapy among patients who were traditionally ineligible for phase 3 ICI trials increased substantially over time, even in the absence of prospective evidence of benefit. Despite increased use of ICI, we did not find a survival benefit associated with ICI monotherapy or combination therapy among trial-ineligible patients. Among trial-ineligible patients, ICI monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with a 14% to 19% greater hazard of death during the first 6 months after ICI initiation. In contrast, ICI monotherapy was associated with a 20% lower hazard of death among those who survived 6 months after initiation. Time-dependent ICI outcomes were observed for trial-ineligible patients with NSCLC, UCC, and HCC; in contrast, ICI outcomes were roughly constant throughout follow-up for patients with RCC. Collectively, these results suggest that phase 3 trials that show a survival benefit for ICI therapy may not generalize to patients with poor PS or organ dysfunction; future prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

There are 3 main findings worth emphasis. First, to our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to show that ICI monotherapy was preferentially used in trial-ineligible populations. These findings were particularly striking for patients with UCC and NSCLC (IPW-adjusted odds ratios, 2.0-2.5), for whom the non-ICI standard of care is platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with patients with HCC and RCC, for whom the non-ICI standard is oral anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Concerns about the tolerability of platinum-based chemotherapy may be associated with preferential use of first-line ICI in trial-ineligible patients, despite sparse evidence of ICI benefit in this population.22,24

Second, we did not find evidence of a survival benefit of ICI monotherapy or combination therapy in trial-ineligible populations, with similar OS at 12 and 36 months between ICI and non-ICI regimens. Much of the enthusiasm regarding the use of ICIs has been generated by the approximately 15% of individuals who have durable long-term response and/or survival.47 In contrast to published prospective and retrospective studies of ICI, this study’s trial-ineligible cohort had a median OS of fewer than 10 months, and nearly 40% of trial-ineligible patients who received treatment died within 6 months. We did not observe a survival advantage for ICI monotherapy or combination therapy among trial-ineligible individuals given the high proportion who died within 1 year.

Third, ICI combination therapy was associated with no long-term survival benefit and potential early harm (aHR, 1.14) among trial-ineligible patients. This finding stands in contrast to published phase 3 trials.3,5,6 Shorter survival for ICI combination therapy was particularly notable among patients with HCC. One potential mechanism for this observation may be that ICI combination therapy exacerbates life-threatening adverse effects from ICI and non-ICI therapy. Our findings regarding ICI combination therapy should be interpreted with caution given heterogeneity among cancer types (notably in RCC). However, ICI and chemotherapy adverse effects are exacerbated in patients with poor PS and organ dysfunction.48,49,50 Thus, our findings argue for cautious use of ICI combination therapy in trial-ineligible patients.

Although we were unable to control for PD-L1 expression in our primary analysis because of high levels of missing data, PD-L1 expression status did not moderate the overall findings in stratified analyses. This is surprising, given that high tumor PD-L1 expression in trial participants is associated with good ICI responses.51 These findings should be interpreted with caution, as PD-L1 stratified analyses may be underpowered.

Our propensity score–adjusted retrospective study suggests that the efficacy of ICIs alone or in combination is worse among trial-ineligible patients than that seen in phase 3 trials. There may be unanticipated harms with ICI use in the 30% of patients who are traditionally excluded from randomized clinical trials.52 Following on specialty society recommendations, phase 3 trials of ICI should allow enrollment of patients with poor PS and/or organ dysfunction to clarify treatment strategies for this population.53

While there was no OS decrement associated with ICIs in trial-ineligible populations, there are consequences to its use. Use of ICIs for patients with poor PS is associated with lower hospice enrollment, more inpatient deaths, and more treatment during the last month of life.20,48,54,55,56,57,58 It is critical to ensure that vulnerable, trial-ineligible patients are not exposed to non–evidence-based therapies that could cause harm and contradict patient goals.59

Limitations

There are several limitations to this analysis. First, the cohort was limited to patients who received systemic therapy, as data from patients who do not receive systemic therapy is suboptimally captured in real-world data sets. Thus, we cannot make conclusions about the relative efficacy of any systemic therapy vs no systemic therapy in trial-ineligible individuals. Second, given that E-values were modest (1.51 [<6 months] and 1.92 [≥6 months]), there may be residual confounding because of unobserved covariates that are associated with the decision to use first-line immunotherapy. Such unobserved covariates include brain metastases, histology, burden of metastatic disease, and International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium criteria (for RCC). Additionally, there may be subtle differences in cohort composition between cancers over time, given that US Food and Drug Administration approvals for ICI therapy in these cancers occurred at different points between 2015 and 2017. However, residual confounding would only fully explain observed treatment effects if the unmeasured confounder was associated with receipt of ICI monotherapy, increased early mortality, and decreased late mortality. Because the direction of the association reverses, an unmeasured confounder would either need to be time varying or have a time-dependent effect that switched direction midway through follow-up. Given this time dependency, such an unmeasured confounder is unlikely, although future work should incorporate more robust clinical data. Third, ECOG PS was missing for nearly half of the cohort. However, the distributions of all observed covariates other than practice type were similar between patients with coded and noncoded ECOG PS. Fourth, the study cohort was primarily seen in community-based oncology practices; thus, our results may not generalize to academic practices. Fifth, certain criteria, such as kidney dysfunction in RCC, are not associated with poorer outcomes and are not routinely exclusion criterion in ICI clinical trials; however, our results for RCC were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, trial-ineligible individuals had a nearly 2-fold greater odds of receiving ICI monotherapy compared with trial-eligible individuals. Among trial-ineligible individuals, ICI therapy had no OS benefit and the potential for early harm. These findings must be validated in prospective phase 3 studies before changing clinical practice. Clinicians who care for patients with poor PS or organ dysfunction should be cautious about ICI use and carefully weigh expected survival gains against the potential for early mortality and adverse effects.

Supplement.

eTable 1. Diagnosis codes used for adverse event coding

eTable 2. Treatment regimen categorizations

eTable 3. Baseline characteristics of study cohort

eTable 4. Baseline characteristics prior to imputation

eTable 5. Association between trial-ineligibility and immune checkpoint inhibitor use

eTable 6. Baseline characteristics of trial-ineligible population

eTable 7. Time-varying hazard ratios for mortality associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor use

eTable 8. Sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of trial-ineligibility

eTable 9. Sensitivity analyses incorporating ECOG performance status into propensity score models

eTable10. Exploratory analysis of survival outcomes by PD-L1 status in NSCLC

eFigure 1. Cohort selection flowchart

eFigure 2. Trends in immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy use over time among all trial-eligible and non-eligible populations

eMethods.

Click here for additional data file. (461.3KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Haslam A, Prasad V. Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who are eligible for and respond to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy drugs. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192535. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.O’Connor JM, Fessele KL, Steiner J, et al. Speed of adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein and comparison of patient ages in clinical practice vs pivotal clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):e180798. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gandhi L, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S, et al. ; KEYNOTE-189 Investigators . Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2078-2092. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, et al. ; KEYNOTE-045 Investigators . Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(11):1015-1026. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. ; IMbrave150 Investigators . Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894-1905. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V, et al. ; KEYNOTE-426 Investigators . Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(12):1116-1127. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Five-year survival and correlates among patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, or non–small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(10):1411-1420. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Samstein RM, Lee C-H, Shoushtari AN, et al. Tumor mutational load predicts survival after immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. Nat Genet. 2019;51(2):202-206. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0312-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shah BK, Mandal R. Survival trends in metastatic bladder cancer in the United States: a population based study. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11(1):124-128. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.140982 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Li P, Wong YN, Armstrong K, et al. Survival among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the pretargeted versus targeted therapy eras. Cancer Med. 2016;5(2):169-181. doi: 10.1002/cam4.574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.American Cancer Society . Cancer facts & figures 2020. Accessed April 1, 2021. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2020.html
  • 12.Howlader N, Forjaz G, Mooradian MJ, et al. The effect of advances in lung-cancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(7):640-649. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Francini E, Bianco V. Tolerability of single-agent sorafenib in the treatment of elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Hepatology. 2014;60(2):764-765. doi: 10.1002/hep.26921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schuette K, Zimmermann L, Bornschein J, Huster D, Csepregi A, Malfertheiner P. Tolerability of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with Child A and B liver cirrhosis. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15S):e15593. doi: 10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e15593 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang Y, Fan W, Zhu K, et al. Sorafenib continuation or discontinuation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma after a complete response. Oncotarget. 2015;6(27):24550-24559. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brose MS, Frenette CT, Keefe SM, Stein SM. Management of sorafenib-related adverse events: a clinician’s perspective. Semin Oncol. 2014;41(suppl 2):S1-S16. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2014.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cohen RB, Oudard S. Antiangiogenic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: management of treatment-related toxicities. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30(5):2066-2079. doi: 10.1007/s10637-012-9796-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Suo A, Iqbal U, Lim J, et al. Outcomes and drug costs of sunitinib regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a provincial population-based study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(3):e397-e404. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Laurent M, Brureau L, Demery ME, et al. Early chemotherapy discontinuation and mortality in older patients with metastatic bladder cancer: the AGEVIM multicenter cohort study. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(1):34.e9-34.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Parikh RB, Galsky MD, Gyawali B, et al. Trends in checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced urothelial cell carcinoma at the end of life: insights from real-world practice. Oncologist. 2019;24(6):e397-e399. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kanz BA, Pollack MH, Johnpulle R, et al. Safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 in patients with baseline cardiac, renal, or hepatic dysfunction. J Immunother Cancer. 2016;4(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s40425-016-0166-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Passaro A, Spitaleri G, Gyawali B, de Marinis F. Immunotherapy in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with performance status 2: clinical decision making with scant evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(22):1863-1867. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.02118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kanesvaran R, Cordoba R, Maggiore R. Immunotherapy in older adults with advanced cancers: implications for clinical decision-making and future research. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38(38):400-414. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_201435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Friedlaender A, Banna GL, Buffoni L, Addeo A. Poor-performance status assessment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer remains vague and blurred in the immunotherapy era. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019;21(12):107. doi: 10.1007/s11912-019-0852-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kolata G. “Desperation oncology”: when patients are dying, some cancer doctors turn to immunotherapy. Accessed August 27, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/health/doctors-cancer-immunotherapy.html
  • 26.Birnbaum B, Nussbaum N, Seidl-Rathkopf K, et al. Model-assisted cohort selection with bias analysis for generating large-scale cohorts from the EHR for oncology research. arXiv. Published online January 13, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09765
  • 27.Ma X, Long L, Moon S, Adamson BJS, Baxi SS. Comparison of population characteristics in real-world clinical oncology databases in the US: Flatiron Health, SEER, and NPCR. medRxiv. Published online May 30, 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.16.20037143 [DOI]
  • 28.Abernethy AP, Gippetti J, Parulkar R, Revol C. Use of electronic health record data for quality reporting. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(8):530-534. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.024224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Griffith SD, Tucker M, Bowser B, et al. Generating real-world tumor burden endpoints from electronic health record data: comparison of RECIST, radiology-anchored, and clinician-anchored approaches for abstracting real-world progression in non–small cell lung cancer. Adv Ther. 2019;36(8):2122-2136. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00970-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Presley CJ, Tang D, Soulos PR, et al. Association of broad-based genomic sequencing with survival among patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer in the community oncology setting. JAMA. 2018;320(5):469-477. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Singal G, Miller PG, Agarwala V, et al. Association of patient characteristics and tumor genomics with clinical outcomes among patients with non–small cell lung cancer using a clinicogenomic database. JAMA. 2019;321(14):1391-1399. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Aggarwal C, et al. ; OCN . NCCN guidelines insights: non–small cell lung cancer, version 1.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(12):1464-1472. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Benson AB, D’Angelica MI, Abbott DE, et al. Guidelines insights: hepatobiliary cancers, version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(4):302-310. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Michaelson MD, et al. ; CGC . NCCN guidelines insights: kidney cancer, version 2.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(11):1278-1285. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Flaig TW, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, et al. Bladder cancer, version 3.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(3):329-354. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Facon T, Dimopoulos MA, Meuleman N, et al. A simplified frailty scale predicts outcomes in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated in the FIRST (MM-020) trial. Leukemia. 2020;34(1):224-233. doi: 10.1038/s41375-019-0539-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group . ECOG performance status. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://ecog-acrin.org/resources/ecog-performance-status
  • 38.National Cancer Institute . Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Accessed January 16, 2020. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm
  • 39.Zhang Q, Gossai A, Monroe S, Nussbaum NC, Parrinello CM. Abstract 5772: validation analysis of a composite real-world mortality endpoint for US cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2020;80(16)(suppl):5772. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2020-5772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Feld E, Harton J, Meropol NJ, et al. Effectiveness of first-line immune checkpoint blockade versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;76(4):524-532. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):403-425. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.McCaffrey DF, Griffin BA, Almirall D, Slaughter ME, Ramchand R, Burgette LF. A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Stat Med. 2013;32(19):3388-3414. doi: 10.1002/sim.5753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Zhang Z, Kim HJ, Lonjon G, Zhu Y; written on behalf of AME Big-Data Clinical Trial Collaborative Group . Balance diagnostics after propensity score matching. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(1):16. doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.12.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Royston P, Parmar MKB. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:152. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ding P, VanderWeele TJ. Sensitivity analysis without assumptions. Epidemiology. 2016;27(3):368-377. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ben-Aharon O, Magnezi R, Leshno M, Goldstein DA. Association of immunotherapy with durable survival as defined by value frameworks for cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(3):326-332. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Khaki AR, Li A, Diamantopoulos LN, et al. Impact of performance status on treatment outcomes: a real-world study of advanced urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer. 2020;126(6):1208-1216. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yokohama K, Asai A, Matsui M, et al. Liver dysfunction is associated with poor prognosis in patients after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14470. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71561-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.van Holstein Y, Kapiteijn E, Bastiaannet E, van den Bos F, Portielje J, de Glas NA. Efficacy and adverse events of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in older patients with cancer. Drugs Aging. 2019;36(10):927-938. doi: 10.1007/s40266-019-00697-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Davis AA, Patel VG. The role of PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker: an analysis of all US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0768-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Salloum RG, Smith TJ, Jensen GA, Lafata JE. Survival among non–small cell lung cancer patients with poor performance status after first line chemotherapy. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(3):545-549. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.04.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kim ES, Bruinooge SS, Roberts S, et al. Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research joint research statement. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(33):3737-3744. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Youn B, Trikalinos NA, Mor V, Wilson IB, Dahabreh IJ. Real-world use and survival outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors in older adults with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2020;126(5):978-985. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Glisch C, Hagiwara Y, Gilbertson-White S, Gao Y, Lyckholm L. Immune checkpoint inhibitor use near the end of life is associated with poor performance status, lower hospice enrollment, and dying in the hospital. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2020;37(3):179-184. doi: 10.1177/1049909119862785 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Glisch C, Saeidzadeh S, Snyders T, Gilbertson-White S, Hagiwara Y, Lyckholm L. Immune checkpoint inhibitor use near the end of life: a single-center retrospective study. J Palliat Med. 2020;23(7):977-979. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Aggarwal C, Langer CJ. Systemic therapy for elderly patients with non–small cell lung cancer: where do we stand in 2019? Cancer. 2020;126(5):931-934. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Spigel DR, McCleod M, Jotte RM, et al. Safety, efficacy, and patient-reported health-related quality of life and symptom burden with nivolumab in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer, including patients aged 70 years or older or with poor performance status (CheckMate 153). J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(9):1628-1639. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Enzinger AC, Zhang B, Weeks JC, Prigerson HG. Clinical trial participation as part of end-of-life cancer care: associations with medical care and quality of life near death. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;47(6):1078-1090. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement.

eTable 1. Diagnosis codes used for adverse event coding

eTable 2. Treatment regimen categorizations

eTable 3. Baseline characteristics of study cohort

eTable 4. Baseline characteristics prior to imputation

eTable 5. Association between trial-ineligibility and immune checkpoint inhibitor use

eTable 6. Baseline characteristics of trial-ineligible population

eTable 7. Time-varying hazard ratios for mortality associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor use

eTable 8. Sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of trial-ineligibility

eTable 9. Sensitivity analyses incorporating ECOG performance status into propensity score models

eTable10. Exploratory analysis of survival outcomes by PD-L1 status in NSCLC

eFigure 1. Cohort selection flowchart

eFigure 2. Trends in immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy use over time among all trial-eligible and non-eligible populations

eMethods.

Click here for additional data file. (461.3KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Oncology are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES