Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association of the Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index (ALI) and Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm) score with immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with gastrointestinal and lung cancer

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 428 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive analysis, evaluating the prognostic significance of the baseline Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index (ALI) and Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm) Score in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed across various databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, until October 21, 2023, to compile relevant articles for analysis. The investigation encompassed diverse clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

This analysis included a total of 15 articles, comprising 19 studies involving 3335 patients. Among the 19 studies, nine studies focused on NSCLC, and six studies were conducted on HCC. Pooled results revealed that patients with elevated ALI levels experienced prolonged OS (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37–0.70, p < 0.001) and extended PFS (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.52–0.72, p < 0.001). Furthermore, a GRIm score > 1 was associated with reduced OS (HR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.47–2.92, p < 0.001) and diminished PFS (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.35–2.34, p < 0.001) in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Subgroup analysis indicated that ALI cutoff values of 18 exhibited enhanced predictive potential. Additionally, for HCC patients, those with HCC-GRIm score > 2 showed a substantially decreased risk of mortality compared to individuals with HCC-GRIm score ≤ 2 (HR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.89–3.65, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The ALI and GRIm score served as dependable prognostic indicators for patients undergoing ICI therapy in the context of cancer treatment.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that target the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have become an integral part of clinical practice [1, 2]. They have revolutionized the treatment of various cancers, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), urothelial cancer (UC), melanoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [3, 4]. While ICI therapy has demonstrated remarkable response rates and long-term survival in advanced cancer patients, its high cost presents economic challenges. Moreover, not all patients benefit equally from immunotherapy [5]. A comprehensive analysis of 262 patients with different malignancies revealed an overall objective response rate (ORR) of 29% and a long-term survivor rate (i.e., longer than 2 years) of 11.8% [6]. It is worth noting that the immune-related adverse effects of ICI therapy can lead to severe and, in some cases, fatal consequences [7].

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the early identification of non-responsive individuals to ICI therapy in cancer treatment to avoid ineffective treatments and reduce the risk of adverse effects [8, 9]. Numerous predictive biomarkers have been studied for their association with the ICI response, such as intratumoral PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltration metrics, and the use of antibiotics and acid suppressants [5, 10]. Nevertheless, establishing consistent criteria for quantifying these markers remains a challenge. At present, the only marker that has received regulatory approval as a companion diagnostic for ICI treatment is the detection of intratumoral PD-L1 [11, 12]. However, the predictive value of PD-L1 expression has not been clarified and recently published meta-analyses come to different conclusions [13, 14]. Therefore, it is crucial to identify novel prognostic biomarkers that can enhance the outcomes of cancer patients undergoing ICI therapy.

Blood tests offer several advantages, including clinical applicability, simplicity, affordability, and the ability to provide objective analysis from virtually anywhere. Cancer tumorigenesis and metastasis are associated with systemic inflammation and malnutrition, and there is a mounting body of evidence emphasizing the pivotal role of inflammation in cancer progression [15]. Nutritional and inflammatory indicators, with the most extensively studied ones being albumin and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), have demonstrated the ability to predict the efficacy of ICI therapy in oncology patients [8, 16]. In 2013, Jafri et al. incorporated NLR, albumin, and body mass index (BMI) into a model, and it was revealed that advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) might help predict survival outcomes in various tumors [17, 18]. The Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm) score, a prognostic tool, combines three key biomarkers: NLR, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). By combining these factors, patients can be categorized into high-risk and low-risk groups, with those with a GRIm score > 1 considered to have a high score [19,20,21]. The predictive value of the GRIm score has been extensively studied in patients with advanced NSCLC who have received various treatments, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), or second-line immunotherapy [19,20,21]. Besides, an improved GRIm score (hepatocellular carcinoma modified Gustave Roussy Immune Score, HCC-GRIm score) was proposed by Li et al. [22]. Compared to the original GRIm-Score, they discovered that the HCC-GRIm-Score had higher predictive power in identifying the HCC patients potentially benefiting from ICIs therapy [22].

The correlation between ALI levels, GRIm score, and the prognosis of cancer patients receiving ICI therapy has yielded conflicting results, and a comprehensive meta-analysis on this topic is currently lacking. Hence, the aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the predictive significance of ALI levels and GRIm score in cancer patients undergoing ICI therapy. The results of this investigation possess the capability to significantly contribute to the advancement of ICIs. This contribution lies in facilitating the delivery of precise, cost-effective treatments and minimizing adverse effects.

Methods

Literature search strategies

In adherence to the PRISMA statement [23], the analysis in this study followed a meticulous approach. An extensive literature search was conducted on October 21, 2023, across reputable databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We used a variety of search terms, including both MeSH terms and keywords, to identify relevant studies. These terms included the following: “Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors [MeSH]”, “PD-1 Inhibitors”, “PD-L1 Inhibitors”, “CTLA-4 Inhibitors”, “Pembrolizumab”, “Nivolumab”, “Atezolizumab”, “Ipilimumab”, “Avelumab”, “Tremelimumab”, “Durvalumab”, “Cemiplimab”, “advanced lung cancer inflammation index”, “Gustave Roussy Immune Score”, and “GRIm”. A comprehensive description of the search strategies employed can be found in Supplementary material 1. Additionally, a thorough exploration of grey literature was performed using Google Scholar, while the reference lists of eligible studies were manually screened to ensure inclusiveness.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In this study, we rigorously selected research articles that met specific criteria. These criteria included patients diagnosed with cancer who received treatment with ICIs and the evaluation of the ALI or GRIm score as a prognostic factor. Furthermore, the articles were required to report on at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). To maintain the focus of our analysis, conference abstracts, comments, and case reports were excluded [24]. When there were studies with overlapping patient cohorts, priority was given to those with the most comprehensive data and robust methodology [25].

Data extraction and quality assessment

In this study, we gathered a variety of information from the selected articles, encompassing author names, publication year, study duration and location, treatment drugs, cancer type, sample size, patient demographics (age and gender), and pertinent cut-off values and outcomes. Our focus was particularly directed toward acquiring data from multivariate analyses, which offer more comprehensive insights compared to univariate analyses. To assess the quality of observational studies, we employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and categorized studies with a NOS score of 6 or higher as high-quality literature [8]. The above process has been independently completed and cross-checked by two authors, with senior authors consulted on any disputes.

Statistical methods

The meta-analyses were executed utilizing Stata 15.0. Heterogeneity was evaluated employing the chi-squared test. In instances where studies displayed a p-value < 0.1 or an I2 statistic exceeding 50%, the application of a random effects model was warranted; conversely, a fixed effects model was applied. Examination for potential publication bias involved both Egger’s [26] and Begg’s tests [27]. In the event of bias detection, the “trim and fill” approach was implemented to gauge its impact on the aggregated outcomes [28]. Furthermore, to assess the resilience of the findings, a sensitivity analysis was performed through the systematic exclusion of each individual study.

Results

Characteristics of studies

Following the removal of duplicate studies and initial screening of titles and abstracts, we proceeded to evaluate the full texts of 22 articles. Among them, 15 articles with 19 studies met the eligibility criteria, resulting in a total of 3335 patients [19, 22, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. The study selection process is presented in Fig. 1, following the guidelines of the PRISMA flowchart. For a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the included studies, Table 1 provides an overview. To assess the risk of bias, we utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which indicated a low risk of bias across all included studies, with score ranging from 6 to 8. Among the 19 studies, nine studies focused on NSCLC, and six studies were conducted on HCC. There was one study each for GC and SCLC. 11 studies investigated the predictive value of ALI, whereas seven studies evaluated the predictive significance of GRIm. Additionally, three studies examined the predictive value of the HCC-GRIm score.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The flow diagram for identifying eligible studies

Full size image
Table 1 Main characteristics of the studies included
Full size table

Baseline ALI levels and OS

By analyzing data from a total of ten studies involving 1846 patients, we investigate the association between ALI levels and OS in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Notably, the results exhibited significant heterogeneity (I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.012), allowing us to employ a random-effects model for estimating the pooled HR. The findings demonstrated a significant correlation, indicating that higher ALI levels were associated with improved OS (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37–0.70, p < 0.001), as illustrated in Fig. 2A.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(A) Forest plots of the relationship between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and overall survival (heterogeneity index I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.012; HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37–0.70, p < 0.001). (B) Sensitivity analysis of the association between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and overall survival. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

To evaluate the reliability of the outcomes, a sensitivity analysis was executed by systematically excluding each individual study and scrutinizing its impact on the overall findings. Notably, the exclusion of any specific study did not exert a substantial effect on the aggregated hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS). Precisely, HR estimates for OS ranged from 0.45 (95% CI: 0.35–0.59) upon excluding the investigation conducted by Liu et al. 2023 to 0.55 (95% CI: 0.41–0.73) upon excluding the study conducted by Yamaguchi et al. 2023 (Fig. 2B). These observations underscore the robustness and consistency of our analysis. To gauge potential publication bias in our meta-analysis, we conducted both Begg’s and Egger’s tests. The outcomes revealed no statistically significant indications of publication bias (Egger’s test: p = 0.822, Begg’s test: p = 0.592).

Baseline ALI levels and PFS

In our analysis, we also examined the association between ALI and PFS in cancer patients treated with ICIs. A total of seven studies encompassing 1519 patients were included in our investigation. Our findings revealed that patients with high ALI levels exhibited a significantly reduced risk of disease progression (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.52–0.72, p < 0.001, Fig. 3A). Notably, no substantial heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 31.3%, p = 0.189), thus the fixed-effects model was used.

Fig. 3
figure 3

(A) Forest plots of the relationship between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and progression-free survival (heterogeneity index I2 = 31.3%, p = 0.189; HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.52–0.72, p < 0.001). (B) Sensitivity analysis of the association between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and progression-free survival. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

Begg’s and Egger’s tests confirmed that there was no publication bias in the above results (Egger’s test: p = 0.204, Begg’s test: p = 0.133). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the exclusion of any individual study did not have a significant impact on the overall results for PFS. The range of HR values for PFS varied from 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48–0.69) when excluding the study by Mountzios et al. 2021 (B) to 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51–0.85) after excluding Mountzios et al. 2021 (A), as shown in Fig. 3B. This analysis indicates that the overall findings regarding PFS remain robust and unaffected by the removal of any specific study.

Baseline GRIm score and OS

Using data from seven studies comprising 903 patients, we investigated the association between GRIm score and OS in patients with cancer treated with ICIs. Our findings demonstrated that patients with a GRIm score > 1 were associated with a 107% increased risk of death (HR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.47–2.92, p < 0.001, Fig. 4A) than those with a GRIm score ≤ 1. Considering the presence of significant heterogeneity (I2 = 70.8%, p = 0.002), we employed a random-effects model to account for the variability among the included studies.

Fig. 4
figure 4

(A) Forest plots of the relationship between Gustave Roussy Immune Score and overall survival (I2 = 70.8%, p = 0.002; HR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.47–2.92, p < 0.001). (B) Sensitivity analysis of the association between the Gustave Roussy Immune Score and overall survival. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

The results of Begg’s and Egger’s tests provided further confirmation that no publication bias was present in the aforementioned findings (Egger’s test: p = 0.405, Begg’s test: p = 1.000). The sensitivity analysis confirmed that the exclusion of any individual study did not significantly alter the overall results. The range of HR values for OS varied from 1.96 (95% CI: 1.33–2.87) after excluding Al Darazi et al. 2020 to 2.22 (95% CI: 1.52–3.24) after excluding Nakazawa et al. 2023 (Fig. 4B).

Baseline GRIm score and PFS

Our study also examined the relationship between GRIm score and PFS in cancer patients treated with ICIs by analyzing data from four studies comprising 383 participants. There was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 23.6%, p = 0.269), and a fixed-effects model was used to estimate the pooled HR. As shown in Fig. 5A, the findings revealed a GRIm score > 1 related to shorter PFS in cancer patients (HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.35–2.34, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results were stable and reliable (Fig. 5B). However, we found a publication bias in the above results (Egger’s test: p = 0.012, Begg’s test: p = 0.089). To address this bias, we employed the trim and fill method to estimate the potential number of missing studies. However, the inclusion of these hypothetical missing studies did not result in any significant changes to the pooled HR (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.36–2.34, p < 0.001). Therefore, it can be inferred that, despite the presence of publication bias, the overall findings remain largely unaffected and maintain their robustness.

Fig. 5
figure 5

(A) Forest plots of the relationship between Gustave Roussy Immune Score and progression-free survival (I2 = 23.6%, p = 0.269; HR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.35–2.34, p < 0.001). (B) Sensitivity analysis of the association between the Gustave Roussy Immune Score and progression-free survival. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

Baseline HCC-GRIm score and OS

We also analyzed the relationship between the HCC-GRIm score and OS of HCC patients treated with ICIs using prognostic data from three cohorts of 666 individuals. Our findings indicate that patients with an HCC-GRIm score > 2 face a significantly elevated risk of mortality compared to those with an HCC-GRIm score ≤ 2 (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.582, HR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.89–3.65, p < 0.001, Fig. 6A). Further validation was provided by the results of Begg’s and Egger’s tests, which demonstrated the absence of publication bias in these findings (Egger’s test: p = 0.103, Begg’s test: p = 0.296). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability and reliability of the results (Fig. 6B).

Fig. 6
figure 6

(A) Forest plots of the relationship between hepatocellular carcinoma-modified Gustave Roussy Immune Score and overall survival (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.582, HR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.89–3.65, p < 0.001). (B) Sensitivity analysis of the association between hepatocellular carcinoma-modified Gustave Roussy Immune Score and overall survival. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

Subgroup analysis

We first performed a subgroup analysis according to the Cox models. We found that high ALI levels were associated with longer OS and PFS in both univariate (OS, HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11–0.82, p = 0.019; PFS, HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47–0.73, p < 0.001) and multivariate analyses (OS, HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40–0.80, p = 0.001; PFS, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50–0.85, p = 0.002) (Fig. 7A and B). Subgroup analysis was then performed according to the different cut-off values. When the ALI was bounded by 18, higher ALI was associated with better OS (HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.38–0.611, p < 0.001) and PFS (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.51–0.76, p < 0.001) (Figure S1A and S1B). And when ALI was cut off by other values, the above relationship did not hold (Figure S1A and S1B).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Subgroup analysis of the relationship between advanced lung cancer inflammation index and overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) based on the Cox model. HR, hazard ratio; CL, confidence interval

Full size image

Discussion

Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic implications of the ALI and GRIm score in cancer patients receiving ICI therapy. Through a comprehensive meta-analysis of relevant studies, we established a strong correlation between higher ALI levels, a lower GRIm score, and improved OS and PFS. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that ALI cutoff values of 18 demonstrated higher predictive potential.

The systemic inflammation observed in cancer patients stems from various factors, including cancer itself, the release of inflammatory mediators by leukocytes, and tissue inflammation triggered by tumor growth or invasion [42,43,44]. Inflammatory markers have proven to be valuable predictors because systemic inflammatory responses contribute to cancer progression, invasion, and metastasis [45,46,47]. In patients undergoing ICI therapy, cytokines and chemokines produced by neutrophils can promote angiogenesis and remodeling of the extracellular matrix [48, 49]. This, in turn, creates a favorable microenvironment for cancer growth and influences the effectiveness of ICIs [50, 51]. Additionally, lymphocytes play a critical role in antitumor immune responses by recognizing cancer cell antigens [52], and these biomarkers may reflect the immune status of patients and their response to ICIs [53].

Several studies have demonstrated the significance of the NLR as a predictive marker for therapeutic response to ICIs in various cancers [54, 55]. Elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines, such as osteopontin and interleukin-6, have been associated with poor outcomes in cancer [56, 57]. Furthermore, a higher NLR value is often correlated with increased proinflammatory cytokine levels [58, 59]. Furthermore, higher NLR values contribute to increased infiltration of macrophages in the tumor microenvironment, leading to resistance to ICIs [60].

Historical investigations have established a correlation between malnutrition and an unfavorable tumor prognosis [43, 61]. Although diminished levels of albumin serve as an indicator of malnutrition, they concurrently function as a biomarker for systemic inflammation [62,63,64]. Previous studies have demonstrated that inflammatory elements impede albumin synthesis, and oxidative stress can induce albumin denaturation, thereby contributing to a swift decline in serum albumin concentrations among individuals experiencing an inflammatory condition [65, 66]. Besides, LDH levels reflect tumor growth and invasiveness in cancer, as LDH is involved in the metabolism of pyruvate to lactic acid [67]. Several studies have reported that elevated LDH levels are predictive of poor prognosis in ICI-treated patients with various cancers [68, 69]. Considering that the ALI and GRIm score incorporate NLR and Alb, it is believed to provide an even stronger indication of resistance to ICI treatment in patients with advanced cancer.

In this investigation, we conducted an initial meta-analysis to validate the prognostic utility of the ALI and GRIm score in evaluating the responsiveness of cancer patients to ICI therapy. The ALI and GRIm score offer a multitude of advantages that render them suitable for routine clinical applications. Their accessibility, facile quantifiability, reproducibility, and comparatively economical nature make them highly amenable for assessment [70]. Consequently, owing to their firmly established influence on the nutritional and immune status of the host, as well as their impact on cancer, the ALI and GRIm score stand poised as valuable instruments for predicting the therapeutic outcomes of ICIs in cancer patients. Tailored and timely nutritional and immunological interventions have the potential to enhance the prognosis of individuals afflicted with cancer.

It is important to highlight that all studies included in our analysis were retrospective studies, which may introduce limitations in terms of statistical validity. Besides, the vast majority of studies included in this analysis were NSCLC and HCC, and the role of ALI and GRIm in other cancers remains to be further investigated. There are too few studies included in the analysis of HCC-GRIm, and more studies are needed for a comprehensive analysis. Therefore, there is a critical need for additional rigorous investigations with larger sample sizes, specifically multicenter prospective studies, to validate and enhance the robustness of our findings. The role of ALI and GRIm in predicting toxicities during immunotherapy should also be further explored in the future.

Conclusion

We propose that the ALI and GRIm score represent robust prognostic indicators and should be integrated into the routine assessment of cancer patients. Such inclusion could prove invaluable for healthcare practitioners in adapting treatment regimens and promptly providing tailored nutritional support.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Zhao J, Li D, Xie S, Deng X, Wen X, Li J, Wu Z, Yang X, Li M, Tang Y, et al. Nomogram for predicting prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma after immunotherapy: a Chinese population-based analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1083840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ye F, Dewanjee S, Li Y, Jha NK, Chen ZS, Kumar A, Vishakha, Behl T, Jha SK, Tang H. Advancements in clinical aspects of targeted therapy and immunotherapy in breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2023;22(1):105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu LL, Skribek M, Harmenberg U, Gerling M. Systemic inflammatory syndromes as life-threatening side effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: case report and systematic review of the literature. J Immunother Cancer 2023, 11(3).

  4. Santoni M, Rizzo A, Kucharz J, Mollica V, Rosellini M, Marchetti A, Tassinari E, Monteiro FSM, Soares A, Molina-Cerrillo J, et al. Complete remissions following immunotherapy or immuno-oncology combinations in cancer patients: the MOUSEION-03 meta-analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2023;72(6):1365–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang L, Kuang T, Chai D, Deng W, Wang P, Wang W. The Use of Antibiotics during Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment is Associated with Lower Survival in Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer. Int Immunopharmacol. 2023;119:110200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gauci ML, Lanoy E, Champiat S, Caramella C, Ammari S, Aspeslagh S, Varga A, Baldini C, Bahleda R, Gazzah A, et al. Long-term survival in patients responding to Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and Disease Outcome upon Treatment Discontinuation. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(3):946–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dolladille C, Ederhy S, Sassier M, Cautela J, Thuny F, Cohen AA, Fedrizzi S, Chrétien B, Da-Silva A, Plane AF, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor Rechallenge after Immune-related adverse events in patients with Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(6):865–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang L, Feng J, Kuang T, Chai D, Qiu Z, Deng W, Dong K, Zhao K, Wang W. Blood biomarkers predict outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a pooled analysis of 44 retrospective sudies. Int Immunopharmacol. 2023;118:110019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Santoni M, Rizzo A, Mollica V, Matrana MR, Rosellini M, Faloppi L, Marchetti A, Battelli N, Massari F. The impact of gender on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: the MOUSEION-01 study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;170:103596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rizzo A, Cusmai A, Giovannelli F, Acquafredda S, Rinaldi L, Misino A, Montagna ES, Ungaro V, Lorusso M, Palmiotti G. Impact of Proton Pump inhibitors and histamine-2-Receptor antagonists on Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Immunotherapy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2022, 14(6).

  11. Ren J, Wang A, Liu J, Yuan Q. Identification and validation of a novel redox-related lncRNA prognostic signature in lung adenocarcinoma. Bioengineered. 2021;12(1):4331–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Havel JJ, Chowell D, Chan TA. The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19(3):133–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Qu FJ, Zhou Y, Wu S. Progress of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy for non-small cell lung cancer with liver metastases. Br J Cancer. 2024;130(2):165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Steen S, Semmelmayer K, Flechtenmacher C, Hoffmann J, Freier K, Horn D, Hess J, Freudlsperger C, Moratin J. Dynamic Up-Regulation of PD-L1 in the progression of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24(22).

  15. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guven DC, Sahin TK, Erul E, Rizzo A, Ricci AD, Aksoy S, Yalcin S. The association between albumin levels and survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:1039121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang YT, Fang KH, Hsu CM, Chang GH, Lai CH, Lee YC, Tsai MS, Huang EI, Tsai YT. Retrospective study on the potential of albumin/globulin ratio as a prognostic biomarker for oral cavity cancer patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(1):227–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang L, Huang Y, Zhou L, Dai Y, Hu G. High pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of poor survival prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2019;41(5):1525–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Minami S, Ihara S, Ikuta S, Komuta K. Gustave Roussy Immune score and Royal Marsden Hospital Prognostic Score are biomarkers of Immune-Checkpoint inhibitor for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019;10(2):90–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bigot F, Castanon E, Baldini C, Hollebecque A, Carmona A, Postel-Vinay S, Angevin E, Armand JP, Ribrag V, Aspeslagh S, et al. Prospective validation of a prognostic score for patients in immunotherapy phase I trials: the Gustave Roussy Immune score (GRIm-Score). Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:212–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gandhi L, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S, Esteban E, Felip E, De Angelis F, Domine M, Clingan P, Hochmair MJ, Powell SF, et al. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non-small-cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2078–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li Y, Pan Y, Lin X, Hou J, Hu Z, Xu L, Zhou Z, Zhang Y, Chen M, Hu D. Development and validation of a Prognostic score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma patients in Immune checkpoint inhibitors therapies: the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Modified Gustave Roussy Immune score. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:819985.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang L, Ma W, Qiu Z, Kuang T, Wang K, Hu B, Wang W. Prognostic nutritional index as a prognostic biomarker for gastrointestinal cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1219929.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang L, Chen C, Chai D, Li C, Guan Y, Liu L, Kuang T, Deng W, Wang W. The association between antibiotic use and outcomes of HCC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. 2022;13:956533.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang L, Yuan Q, Li M, Chai D, Deng W, Wang W. The association of leptin and adiponectin with hepatocellular carcinoma risk and prognosis: a combination of traditional, survival, and dose-response meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):1167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Li Q, Ma F, Wang JF. Advanced lung cancer inflammation index predicts survival outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving immunotherapy. Front Oncol. 2023;13:997314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hatanaka T, Naganuma A, Hiraoka A, Tada T, Hirooka M, Kariyama K, Tani J, Atsukawa M, Takaguchi K, Itobayashi E, et al. The hepatocellular carcinoma modified Gustave Roussy Immune score (HCC-GRIm score) as a novel prognostic score for patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Cancer Med. 2023;12(4):4259–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nakazawa N, Sohda M, Ubukata Y, Kuriyama K, Kimura A, Kogure N, Hosaka H, Naganuma A, Sekiguchi M, Saito K, et al. Changes in the Gustave Roussy Immune score as a powerful prognostic marker of the therapeutic sensitivity of Nivolumab in Advanced Gastric Cancer: a Multicenter, Retrospective Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(12):7400–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Minichsdorfer C, Gleiss A, Aretin MB, Schmidinger M, Fuereder T. Serum parameters as prognostic biomarkers in a real world cancer patient population treated with anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):1339–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Holtzman L, Moskovitz M, Urban D, Nechushtan H, Keren S, Reinhorn D, Wollner M, Daher S, Rottenberg Y, Rovitzky Y, et al. dNLR-Based score Predicting overall survival benefit for the addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to Pembrolizumab in Advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%. Clin Lung Cancer. 2022;23(2):122–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Qi WX, Xiang Y, Zhao S, Chen J. Assessment of systematic inflammatory and nutritional indexes in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy and atezolizumab. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021;70(11):3199–206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mountzios G, Samantas E, Senghas K, Zervas E, Krisam J, Samitas K, Bozorgmehr F, Kuon J, Agelaki S, Baka S, et al. Association of the advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) with immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. ESMO Open. 2021;6(5):100254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lenci E, Cantini L, Pecci F, Cognigni V, Agostinelli V, Mentrasti G, Lupi A, Ranallo N, Paoloni F, Rinaldi S et al. The Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm)-Score variation is an early-on-treatment biomarker of Outcome in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with First-Line Pembrolizumab. J Clin Med 2021, 10(5).

  37. Al Darazi G, Martin E, Delord JP, Korakis I, Betrian S, Estrabaut M, Poublanc M, Gomez-Roca C, Filleron T. Improving patient selection for immuno-oncology phase 1 trials: external validation of six prognostic scores in a French Cancer Center. Int J Cancer 2020.

  38. Adachi Y, Tamiya A, Taniguchi Y, Enomoto T, Azuma K, Kouno S, Inagaki Y, Saijo N, Okishio K, Atagi S. Predictive factors for progression-free survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving nivolumab based on performance status. Cancer Med. 2020;9(4):1383–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shiroyama T, Suzuki H, Tamiya M, Tamiya A, Tanaka A, Okamoto N, Nakahama K, Taniguchi Y, Isa SI, Inoue T, et al. Pretreatment advanced lung cancer inflammation index (ALI) for predicting early progression in nivolumab-treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Med. 2018;7(1):13–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yamaguchi O, Kaira K, Imai H, Mouri A, Shiono A, Miura Y, Hashimoto K, Kobayashi K, Kagamu H. Clinical utility of inflammatory and nutritious index as therapeutic prediction of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC. Oncology 2023.

  41. Liu C, Zhao H, Zhang R, Guo Z, Wang P, Qu Z. Prognostic value of nutritional and inflammatory markers in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors. Oncol Lett. 2023;26(4):437.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cassidy J, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, Koski S, Lichinitser M, Yang TS, Rivera F, et al. Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):2006–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yuan Q, Zhang W, Shang W. Identification and validation of a prognostic risk-scoring model based on sphingolipid metabolism-associated cluster in colon adenocarcinoma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:1045167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang B, Sun J, Guan H, Guo H, Huang B, Chen X, Chen F, Yuan Q. Integrated single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing revealed the molecular characteristics and prognostic roles of neutrophils in pancreatic cancer. Aging 2023, 15.

  45. Hasegawa T, Yanagitani N, Utsumi H, Wakui H, Sakamoto H, Tozuka T, Yoshida H, Amino Y, Uematsu S, Yoshizawa T, et al. Association of High Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Poor Outcomes of Pembrolizumab Therapy in High-PD-L1-expressing non-small cell Lung Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(12):6851–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhu GL, Yang KB, Tang SQ, Peng L. Progression-free survival assessed per immune-related or conventional response criteria, which is the better surrogate endpoint for overall survival in trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2021;10(23):8272–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhao Y, Wei K, Chi H, Xia Z, Li X. IL-7: a promising adjuvant ensuring effective T cell responses and memory in combination with cancer vaccines? Front Immunol. 2022;13:1022808.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Jaillon S, Ponzetta A, Di Mitri D, Santoni A, Bonecchi R, Mantovani A. Neutrophil diversity and plasticity in tumour progression and therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(9):485–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang Z, Yuan Q, Chen X, Luo F, Shi X, Guo F, Ren J, Li S, Shang D. A prospective prognostic signature for pancreatic adenocarcinoma based on ubiquitination-related mRNA-lncRNA with experimental validation in vitro and vivo. Funct Integr Genomics. 2023;23(3):263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sacdalan DB, Lucero JA, Sacdalan DL. Prognostic utility of baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:955–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Yuan Q, Deng D, Pan C, Ren J, Wei T, Wu Z, Zhang B, Li S, Yin P, Shang D. Integration of transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics data to reveal HER2-associated metabolic heterogeneity in gastric cancer with response to immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Front Immunol. 2022;13:951137.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Yu WD, Sun G, Li J, Xu J, Wang X. Mechanisms and therapeutic potentials of cancer immunotherapy in combination with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Cancer Lett. 2019;452:66–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Banna GL, Signorelli D, Metro G, Galetta D, De Toma A, Cantale O, Banini M, Friedlaender A, Pizzutillo P, Garassino MC, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in combination with PD-L1 or lactate dehydrogenase as biomarkers for high PD-L1 non-small cell lung cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020;9(4):1533–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Russo A, Russano M, Franchina T, Migliorino MR, Aprile G, Mansueto G, Berruti A, Falcone A, Aieta M, Gelibter A, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and outcomes with Nivolumab in Pretreated Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): a large Retrospective Multicenter Study. Adv Ther. 2020;37(3):1145–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Capone M, Giannarelli D, Mallardo D, Madonna G, Festino L, Grimaldi AM, Vanella V, Simeone E, Paone M, Palmieri G, et al. Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and derived NLR could predict overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Wu CY, Wu MS, Chiang EP, Wu CC, Chen YJ, Chen CJ, Chi NH, Chen GH, Lin JT. Elevated plasma osteopontin associated with gastric cancer development, invasion and survival. Gut. 2007;56(6):782–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Middleton K, Jones J, Lwin Z, Coward JI. Interleukin-6: an angiogenic target in solid tumours. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;89(1):129–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ock CY, Nam AR, Lee J, Bang JH, Lee KH, Han SW, Kim TY, Im SA, Kim TY, Bang YJ, et al. Prognostic implication of antitumor immunity measured by the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and serum cytokines and angiogenic factors in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(2):254–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ding P, Wu J, Wu H, Sun C, Guo H, Lowe S, Yang P, Tian Y, Liu Y, Meng L, et al. Inflammation and nutritional status indicators as prognostic indicators for patients with locally advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with neoadjuvant imatinib. BMC Gastroenterol. 2023;23(1):23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Motomura T, Shirabe K, Mano Y, Muto J, Toshima T, Umemoto Y, Fukuhara T, Uchiyama H, Ikegami T, Yoshizumi T, et al. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio reflects hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation via inflammatory microenvironment. J Hepatol. 2013;58(1):58–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fearon K, Strasser F, Anker SD, Bosaeus I, Bruera E, Fainsinger RL, Jatoi A, Loprinzi C, MacDonald N, Mantovani G, et al. Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):489–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Evans DC, Corkins MR, Malone A, Miller S, Mogensen KM, Guenter P, Jensen GL. The Use of visceral proteins as Nutrition markers: an ASPEN position paper. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021;36(1):22–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ding P, Lv J, Sun C, Chen S, Yang P, Tian Y, Zhou Q, Guo H, Liu Y, Zhao Q. Combined systemic inflammatory immunity index and prognostic nutritional index scores as a screening marker for Sarcopenia in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Front Nutr. 2022;9:981533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Xiong J, Chi H, Yang G, Zhao S, Zhang J, Tran LJ, Xia Z, Yang F, Tian G. Revolutionizing anti-tumor therapy: unleashing the potential of B cell-derived exosomes. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1188760.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Coffelt SB, de Visser KE. Cancer: inflammation lights the way to metastasis. Nature. 2014;507(7490):48–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bito R, Hino S, Baba A, Tanaka M, Watabe H, Kawabata H. Degradation of oxidative stress-induced denatured albumin in rat liver endothelial cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2005;289(3):C531–542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Aday U, Tatlı F, Akpulat FV, İnan M, Kafadar MT, Bilge H, Başol Ö, Oğuz A. Prognostic significance of pretreatment serum lactate dehydrogenase-to-albumin ratio in gastric cancer. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2020;24(3):145–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Taniguchi Y, Tamiya A, Isa SI, Nakahama K, Okishio K, Shiroyama T, Suzuki H, Inoue T, Tamiya M, Hirashima T, et al. Predictive factors for poor progression-free survival in patients with non-small cell Lung Cancer treated with Nivolumab. Anticancer Res. 2017;37(10):5857–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Agulló-Ortuño MT, Gómez-Martín Ó, Ponce S, Iglesias L, Ojeda L, Ferrer I, García-Ruiz I, Paz-Ares L. Pardo-Marqués V: blood predictive biomarkers for patients with non-small-cell Lung Cancer Associated with Clinical Response to Nivolumab. Clin Lung Cancer. 2020;21(1):75–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kang BW, Chau I. Current status and future potential of predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastric cancer. ESMO Open 2020, 5(4).

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hao Jiang, Borui Li and Min Wu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Taizhou Central Hospital (Taizhou University, Hospital), Taizhou, China

    Hao Jiang

  2. Department of Urologic Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University (Liaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute), Shenyang, China

    Borui Li

  3. Department of Oncology, The Third People’s Hospital of Honghe Prefecture, Gejiu, China

    Min Wu

  4. Department of Colorectal and Anorectal Surgery, Hunan Hospital of Integrated Tradmonal Chinese and Western Medicine (Hunan Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital), Changsha, China

    Yijin Li

  5. Hunan Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China

    Qimei Wang

Authors
  1. Hao Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Borui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Min Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qimei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yijin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JH, LB, WM, WQ, and LY conceived and designed the study. JH, LB, and WM were responsible for the collection and assembly of data, data analysis, and interpretation. JH, LB, and WM were involved in writing the manuscript. WQ and LY revised the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qimei Wang or Yijin Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, H., Li, B., Wu, M. et al. Association of the Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index (ALI) and Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm) score with immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with gastrointestinal and lung cancer. BMC Cancer 24, 428 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12149-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12149-1

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us