==== Front Cancer Med Cancer Med 10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634 CAM4 Cancer Medicine 2045-7634 John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 37132258 10.1002/cam4.6013 CAM46013 CAM4-2023-02-0506.R2 Research Article RESEARCH ARTICLES Clinical Cancer Research Predicting immune‐related adverse events using a simplified frailty score in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors: A retrospective cohort study Olsson Ladjevardi et al. Olsson Ladjevardi Cecilia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7789-0310 1 2 Koliadi Anthoula 1 2 Rydén Viktoria 1 2 Inan El‐Naggar Ali 3 Digkas Evangelos 1 4 Valachis Antonios https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6059-0194 3 antonios.valachis@oru.se Ullenhag Gustav J. 1 2 1 Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology Uppsala University Uppsala Sweden 2 Department of Oncology Uppsala University Hospital Uppsala Sweden 3 Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Örebro University Örebro Sweden 4 Department of Oncology Mälarsjukhuset Eskilstuna Sweden * Correspondence Antonios Valachis, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. Email: antonios.valachis@oru.se 03 5 2023 6 2023 12 12 10.1002/cam4.v12.12 1321713224 16 4 2023 02 2 2023 21 4 2023 © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Objective Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are in widespread clinical use. Little is known about which patients are at risk for developing toxicity. It is essential being able to identify patients with higher risk of experiencing immune‐related adverse events (IRAEs) before initiation of CPI treatment to optimize treatment decisions and follow‐up strategy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a simplified frailty score based on performance status (PS), age, and comorbidity expressed as Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) could predict development of IRAEs. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study at three Swedish centers. All patients (n = 596) treated with PD‐L1 or PD‐1 inhibitor for advanced cancer between January 2017 and December 2021 were included. Results In total, 361 patients (60.6%) were classified as nonfrail and 235 (39.4%) as frail. The most common cancer type was non‐small cell lung cancer (n = 203; 34.1%) followed by malignant melanoma (n = 195; 32.7%). Any grade of IRAE occurred in 138 (58.7%) frail and in 155 (42.9%) non‐frail patients (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.09–2.28). Age, CCI, and PS did not independently predict the occurrence of IRAEs. Multiple IRAEs occurred in 53 (22.6%) frail and in 45 (12.5%) nonfrail patients (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.00–2.64). Discussion In conclusion, the simplified frailty score predicted all grade IRAEs and multiple IRAEs in multivariate analyses whereas age, CCI, or PS did not separately predict development of IRAEs suggesting that this easy‐to‐use score may be of value in clinical decision making but a large prospective study is needed to assess its true value. advanced cancer checkpoint inhibitor cohort study frailty score immune‐related adverse events source-schema-version-number2.0 cover-dateJune 2023 details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.0 mode:remove_FC converted:03.07.2023 Olsson Ladjevardi C , Koliadi A , Rydén V , et al. Predicting immune‐related adverse events using a simplified frailty score in cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors: A retrospective cohort study. Cancer Med. 2023;12 :13217‐13224. doi:10.1002/cam4.6013 Antonios Valachis and Gustav J. Ullenhag contributed equally to this study. ==== Body pmc1 INTRODUCTION Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has revolutionized the therapeutic strategies in various cancer types and in different treatment settings during the last decade. 1 , 2 , 3 The number of cancer patients eligible for CPIs is expected to increase 4 considering the rising number of ongoing randomized trials with CPIs, the increasing trend of new treatment indications for CPIs and not the least the growing cancer incidence. In general, CPIs have a favorable toxicity profile compared to chemotherapy. 5 However, patients treated with CPIs have a considerable risk of immune‐related adverse events (IRAEs) that may affect almost any organ system and may occur at any timepoint during treatment and even after treatment discontinuation. 6 Although IRAEs are often reversible when management guidelines are followed accurately, some IRAEs are long‐term and life‐threatening. 7 , 8 Therefore, it is essential to be able to identify patients with higher risk for IRAEs in clinical practice before initiation of CPI treatment to optimize treatment decisions and follow‐up strategy. Research in this field is ongoing and recent studies have focused on identifying predictive biomarkers for IRAEs through “‐omics” technologies. 9 , 10 However, the fact that these biomarkers are still experimental in combination with the high cost, limited availability, and complexity precludes their implementation in clinical practice. Hence, there is still an unmet need to establish predictive factors for development of IRAEs based on parameters easily available in daily practice. Given the advantages of using well‐established tools in clinical practice, both performance status (PS) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) have been investigated as potential predictive factors for the development of IRAEs with conflicting results. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 Age has also been investigated as a potential predictive factor for IRAEs where older patients were found to be at higher risk of experiencing IRAEs in one study 15 but not in others. 14 , 16 , 17 The simplified frailty score is an easy‐to‐use tool primarily developed from a cohort of transplant‐ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma to reflect patients' frailty and is based on three variables including PS, CCI, and age. Its prognostic significance has been validated 18 , 19 , 20 whereas a potential predictive role for risk of chemotherapy induced severe adverse events has also been suggested. 18 Given the simplicity of this tool, it could be easily applied in clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the simplified frailty score could serve as a predictive tool for IRAEs in a cohort of patients with advanced cancer treated with CPIs. 2 PATIENTS AND METHODS 2.1 Study design and setting In this multicenter retrospective cohort study we identified all patients treated with CPIs (PD‐1 or PD‐L1 inhibitors) for advanced cancer between January 1st 2017 until December 31st 2021 from three regions (Sörmland county, Uppsala county, and Örebro county) in Sweden. Patients treated with a combination of PD‐1 and anti‐CTLA4 inhibitor were included as well as patients treated with CPIs as part of a clinical trial. We excluded patients treated with CPIs in a curative setting in order to make the study population more homogenous. 2.2 Data collection Data were extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) by dedicated researchers in a database with pre‐specified variables of interest. The following data were collected: age at diagnosis, gender, comorbidities expressed as CCI, type of cancer, primary treatment at diagnosis, age at diagnosis of advanced cancer, metastatic sites, CPI initiation date, PS (WHO classification) at CPI initiation, exposure to antibiotics within 30 days before or after CPI initiation, exposure to steroids (> 10 mg prednisolone or equivalent dose) at the CPI initiation date, number of previous lines of treatment, best treatment response on CPI, date of disease progression, IRAEs (date, type, grade, outcome), date of death, and cause of death. 2.3 Outcomes and definitions The simplified frailty score was calculated for each patient based on age, PS, and CCI (Table 1). CCI is based on following comorbidities: myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular accident or TIA, dementia, COPD, connective tissue disease, peptic ulcer disease, liver disease, DM, hemiplegia, chronic kidney disease, leukemia, lymphoma, AIDS, and solid tumor. For each parameter a score was set (0–2). Regarding age the score was 0 for patients ≤75 years, 1 for 76–80 years, and 2 for >80 years. PS 0 gave a score of 0, PS 1 a score of 1, and PS ≥2 a score of 2. CCI ≤1 gave a score of 0 and CCI >1 a score of 1. According to the sum of scores patients with a score 0–1 was considered nonfrail and ≥2 frail. TABLE 1 Parameters in simplified frailty score. Parameter Score Age ≤75 years 0 76–80 years 1 >80 years 2 Charlson comorbidity index ≤1 0 >1 1 ECOG performance status 0 0 1 1 ≥ 2 2 Sum of scores Nonfrail 0–1 Frail ≥ 2 Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. IRAEs were categorized in grade according to CTCAE 5.0 grading system. If the grade was not included in the EMRs, an approximation of the grade was decided based on the description of adverse events in EMRs and the laboratory findings, whenever feasible. Multiple IRAEs were defined as IRAEs involving more than one organ system either simultaneously or sequentially. 2.4 Statistical methods Categorical variables were expressed as count and frequency whereas continuous variables as median and range. The association between potential variables of interest and risk for IRAEs (different grading levels, presence of multiple IRAEs) or discontinuation due to IRAEs was analyzed by simple and multiple logistic regression analyses to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Age was included as continuous variable in all analyses to avoid any arbitrary age cutoff that might impact the results. Performance status and CCI were analyzed in groups reflecting the scoring of the simplified frailty score. Variables included in the multivariate models were chosen as previously documented predictors of IRAEs and if there was a statistically significant association between the variable of interest and IRAEs in bivariate analyses. All p‐values were two‐sided and a p‐value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS (version 28.0‐, Released 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. IBM Corp). 3 RESULTS 3.1 Characteristics of study cohort Baseline characteristics of the study cohort are summarized in Table 2. In total, 596 patients were included in the study cohort with a median age of 66 years (range 24–87). The most common underlying malignant disease was non‐small cell lung cancer (203 patients; 34.1%) followed by malignant melanoma (195 patients; 32.7%) and renal cell carcinoma (87 patients; 14.6%). Monotherapy with nivolumab was the most used CPI treatment (283 patients; 47.5%) followed by single treatment with pembrolizumab (209 patients; 35.1%) whereas 40 patients (6.7%) were treated with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. By implementing the simplified frailty score in the study cohort, 361 patients (60.6%) were classified as non‐frail and 235 (39.4%) as frail. TABLE 2 Characteristics of study cohort. Variable N (%) Age, median (range), in years 66 (24–87) Gender Male 346 (58.1) Female 250 (41.9) Charlson comorbidity index, median (range) 3 (0–11) Type of cancer NSCLC 203 (34.1) Melanoma 195 (32.7) Renal cell carcinoma 87 (14.6) Urothelial carcinoma 35 (5.9) HNSCC 23 (3.9) Other 53 (8.9) Metastatic disease at diagnosis 278 (46.7) Visceral metastases 400 (67.1) Central nervous system metastases 50 (8.4) Performance status according to ECOG at baseline 0 213 (35.7) 1 278 (46.6) 2 94 (15.8) 3 or 4 11 (1.8) Exposure to antibiotics within 30 days 118 (19.7) Exposure to steroids at treatment initiation 47 (7.8) Type of checkpoint inhibitors Nivolumab 283 (47.5) Pembrolizumab 209 (35.1) Atezolizumab 56 (9.4) Nivolumab + ipilimumab 40 (6.7) Durvalumab 4 (0.7) Cemiplimab 4 (0.7) Line of treatment for checkpoint inhibitors First 268 (45.0) Second 231 (38.8) Third or later 97 (16.3) Simplified frailty score Nonfrail 361 (60.6) Frail 235 (39.4) Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; NSCLC, non‐small cell lung cancer. 3.2 Frequency and outcome of IRAEs Table 3 presents the frequency of IRAEs in frail and non‐frail patients according to the simplified frailty score. Any grade IRAEs, grade ≥2 IRAEs and multiple IRAEs were significantly more common in the frail patient group with univariate ORs of 1.93 (95% CI: 1.38–2.70), 1.60 (95% CI: 1.14–2.46), and 2.05 (95% CI: 1.32–3.17), respectively. TABLE 3 Frequency of immune‐related adverse events using simplified frailty score. Nonfrail (%) N = 361 Frail (%) N = 235 Any grade IRAE 155 (42.9) 138 (58.7) IRAE grade ≥2 117 (32.4) 102 (43.4) IRAE grade ≥3 58 (16.1) 46 (19.6) Multiple IRAEs 45 (12.5) 53 (22.6) Discontinuation due to IRAE 60 (16.6) 43 (18.3) Abbreviation: IRAE, immune‐related adverse events. The distribution of IRAEs by target organ in frail and non‐frail patient cohorts was similar with skin IRAEs being most frequent in both cohorts followed by endocrine‐related IRAEs while gastrointestinal, rheumatological, and hepatopancreaticobiliary IRAEs were within top 3–5 in both frail and non‐frail patients (Figure 1). FIGURE 1 Frequency of any grade immune‐related adverse events (IRAEs) per frailty status according to simplified frailty score. Regarding the outcome of IRAEs, no numerical differences in the rates of resolution or worsening between the two patient groups were observed (Table 4). Four nonfrail (2.9%) and one frail (0.6%) patient died due to IRAE (p‐value = 0.653). Three of these patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab and two with monotherapy. Three of the patients had an underlying hepatopancreaticobiliary IRAE with lethal outcome whereas one patient had a gastrointestinal IRAE, and one had a neurological IRAE. TABLE 4 Outcome of IRAEs in relation to simplified frailty score. Outcome of IRAEs Non‐frail with any IRAE (%) N = 138 Frail with any IRAE (%) N = 155 Resolved without sequelae 78 (56.5) 86 (55.5) Resolved with minor sequelae 47 (34.1) 55 (35.5) Resolved with major sequelae 7 (5.1) 7 (4.5) Worsening 2 (1.4) 6 (3.9) Death due to IRAE 4 (2.9) 1 (0.6) Abbreviation: IRAEs, immune‐related adverse events. 3.3 Predicting IRAEs We investigated the potential predictive role of age, CCI, and PS as independent factors but also combined as simplified frailty score on the risk for IRAEs or treatment discontinuation due to IRAEs. The results of simple and multiple regression analyses are summarized in Table 5. TABLE 5 Impact of age, performance status, and simplified frailty score on predicting immune‐related toxicities. Outcome Age (continuous) Performance status (0 vs. 1 vs. ≥2) Charlson comorbidity index (0–1 vs. 2–3 vs. >3) Simplified frailty score (nonfrail vs. frail) d Univariate OR (95% CI) Multivariate a OR (95% CI) Univariate OR (95% CI) Multivariate b OR (95% CI) Univariate OR (95% CI) Multivariate c OR (95% CI) Univariate OR (95% CI) Multivariate OR (95% CI) Any grade IRAE 0.96 (0.98–1.01) 1.00 (0.98–1.03) 1.13 (0.57–2.93) 1.92 (0.96–4.66) 1.18 (0.82–1.72) 1.85 (0.98–3.02) 0.77 (0.53–1.12) 1.14 (0.73–1.79) 0.86 (0.46–1.62) 1.27 (0.60–2.70) 1.93 (1.38–2.70) 1.58 (1.09–2.28) IRAE grade ≥2 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 1.00 (0.98–1.03) 1.41 (0.85–2.33) 2.11 (0.96–3.68) 1.44 (0.86–2.42) 1.95 (0.93–3.49) 0.71 (0.48–1.05) 1.25 (0.80–1.96) 0.67 (0.36–1.26) 1.06 (0.50–2‐25) 1.60 (1.14–2.46) 1.30 (0.89–1.90) IRAE grade ≥3 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 1.01 (0.98–1.04) 1.69 (0.82–3.47) 1.37 (0.71–2.65) 1.46 (0.69–3.09) 1.32 (0.67–2.61) 0.56 (0.36–1.01) 1.02 (0.59–1.75) 0.60 (0.27–1.32) 1.13 (0.46–2.87) 1.27 (0.83–1.95) 1.00 (0.60–1.57) Multiple IRAEs 0.99 (0.97–1.00) 1.01 (0.98–1.04 1.80 (0.81–4.02) 2.76 (1.19–6.39) 1.77 (0.79–4.01) 2.42 (0.94–5.74) 0.75 (0.44–1.27) 1.78 (1.03–3.08) 0.68 (0.38–1.21) 1.44 (0.57–3.64) 2.05 (1.32–3.17) 1.62 (1.00–2.64) Discontinuation due to IRAE 1.02 (1.00–1.04) 1.02 (0.99–1.05) 1.09 (0.57–2.01) 2.19 (0.98–4.36) 1.06 (0.54–2.07) 1.93 (0.95–3.93) 0.70 (0.38–1.30) 1.05 (0.66–1.71) 1.45 (0.63–3.35) 1.28 (0.47–3.49) 1.12 (0.73–1.73) 0.92 (0.57–1.49) Note: Statistically significant associations are highlighted with bold. Abbreviation: IRAEs, immune‐related adverse events. a Adjusted for gender, Charlson comorbidity index, performance status, cancer type, type of checkpoint inhibitors, line of treatment. b Adjusted for gender, age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, type of checkpoint inhibitors, line of treatment. c Adjusted for gender, age, performance status, cancer type, type of checkpoint inhibitors, line of treatment. d Adjusted for gender, cancer type, type of checkpoint inhibitors, line of treatment. Neither age, nor CCI or PS were independently predictive of IRAEs or treatment discontinuation due to IRAEs in multivariate analyses. In terms of simplified frailty score, frail patients were at a significantly higher risk for developing an IRAE irrespective of grade (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.09–2.28) and multiple IRAEs (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.00–2.64) but not for high‐grade IRAEs or treatment discontinuation. 4 DISCUSSION The aim of this retrospective multicenter cohort study was to investigate whether a simplified frailty score, based on three variables that are easily available in clinical practice (age, PS, and CCI), could serve as a predictive tool for IRAEs in patients with advanced cancer receiving CPIs. To our knowledge this is the first study to evaluate the correlation between IRAEs and the simplified frailty score earlier used in myeloma patients to predict clinical outcomes. 18 The current study describes data from a real‐world population of almost 600 patients and shows that IRAEs regardless of grade and multiple IRAEs are significantly more common in frail patients according to the simplified frailty score whereas age, CCI, or PS did not separately predict the development of IRAEs. Considering that age, the presence of comorbidities, and PS are well‐established factors associated with lower tolerance for chemotherapy 21 , 22 , 23 these factors have also been studied separately in cancer patients receiving CPIs. 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 24 , 25 Although age has been investigated as a potential factor associated with increased risk for IRAEs 15 such an association has not been observed in pivotal randomized trials 25 nor in real‐world evidence studies. 14 , 16 , 17 , 24 In line with these studies, age alone was not associated with development of IRAEs or discontinuation of therapy in our study. Although patients with different comorbidities including autoimmune diseases were excluded from initial clinical trials, real‐world data suggest that CPIs may be feasible in patients with low‐risk autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, mild to moderate hepatic and renal dysfunction, and certain chronic viral infections. 12 , 26 , 27 , 28 The results from these studies correspond to our observation that comorbidity, measured as CCI, did not by itself predict IRAEs. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS is routinely used to assess tolerance to chemotherapy and to predict survival. 22 , 29 , 30 Patients with ECOG PS >1 are frequently excluded from pivotal randomized trials and outcomes in this group are therefore mainly based on retrospective studies from real world settings. Treatment with CPIs seems to be safe and effective also in patients with poor PS even though response rates and overall survival in this group is clearly inferior compared to patients with PS 0–1. 16 , 31 , 32 This observation is supported by our results indicating that PS as a single variable does not predict the development of IRAEs. There are a few previous studies investigating the correlation between frailty and the development of IRAEs. One of these studies assessed the safety and tolerability of CPIs in older cancer patients divided into frailty groups according to a non‐validated frailty tool based on PS, CCI, and neutrophil‐lymphocyte ratio and found no increase of IRAEs among patients in the high‐frailty group. 33 Geriatric assessment through validated questionnaires as the Geriatric 8 (G8), containing eight questions, can be used to predict toxicity of treatment with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and endocrine therapy. 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 Bruijnen et al. conducted a study among stage III and IV melanoma patients aged 70 years and older treated with anti‐PD‐1 monotherapy, where G8 did not predict IRAEs. 38 Similarly, the study of Welaya et al. failed to demonstrate any association between impairment in any geriatric assessment domain and IRAEs in a pilot study including older cancer patients treated with CPIs. 39 The current study has several limitations. First, the retrospective nature of the study makes the results more susceptible to bias. As a consequence of the study's retrospective design, the identification of IRAEs was based on information in EMRs and there is a risk that low‐grade IRAEs are underreported. Meanwhile, the frequencies of both any‐grade and grade ≥3 IRAEs, with only a small minority having received combination immunotherapy (6.7%) and the lethal outcome of immune‐related toxicity (0.8%) in our cohort is similar as reported in randomized trials. 40 Another potential source of bias is the risk for misclassification regarding grade of IRAE as well as the risk for a single IRAE with consequences being classified as multiple IRAEs. Furthermore, the limited number of events precludes any reliable analyses in terms of the potential role of frailty score in predicting site‐specific IRAEs or grade 5 IRAEs. Finally, the simplified frailty score was developed for myeloma patients and treatments for myeloma differ a lot from immunotherapy, therefore the score might not reflect aspects of importance for patients treated with CPIs. In summary, the current study shows that IRAEs regardless of grade and multiple IRAEs are significantly more common in frail patients according to the simplified frailty score. At the same time, the three factors constituting the frailty score, that is, age, CCI, or PS did not independently predict development of IRAEs. However, the difference in IRAEs between frail and nonfrail patients did not reach statistical significance for patients experiencing severe (grade 3–4) toxicity or treatment discontinuation constituting the most clinically relevant outcomes. Considering the lack of easy‐to‐use predictive tools for IRAEs in clinical practice and our preliminary findings, the simplified frailty score may be of value in clinical decision making for patients who are eligible for CPIs and deserves further validation through a large prospective study. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Cecilia Olsson Ladjevardi: Data curation (equal); writing – original draft (lead). Anthoula Koliadi: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Viktoria Rydén: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Ali Inan El‐Naggar: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Evangelis Digkas: Data curation (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting). Antonis Valachis: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); funding acquisition (equal); methodology (lead); project administration (lead); software (lead); supervision (lead); validation (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Gustav Ullenhag: Conceptualization (supporting); data curation (supporting); formal analysis (supporting); funding acquisition (lead); methodology (supporting); project administration (equal); supervision (lead); validation (supporting); writing – original draft (lead). FUNDING INFORMATION The study was supported by grants to Prof. G.J. Ullenhag from The Research Foundation Stiftelsen Onklologoska Kliniken i Uppsalas Forskningsfond and Uppsala University Hospital (ALF). CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT None of the authors has any potential financial conflict of interest related to this manuscript. ETHICS STATEMENT The study has been approved from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2019‐02469). Considering the retrospective nature of the study, the Ethical Review Authority waived the need for informed consent. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Not applicable. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Larkin J , Chiarion‐Sileni V , Gonzalez R , et al. Five‐year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381 (16 ):1535‐1546.31562797 2 Eggermont AMM , Blank CU , Mandala M , et al. Longer follow‐up confirms recurrence‐free survival benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab in high‐risk stage III melanoma: updated results from the EORTC 1325‐MG/KEYNOTE‐054 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38 (33 ):3925‐3936.32946353 3 Hargadon KM , Johnson CE , Williams CJ . Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA‐approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018;62 :29‐39.29990692 4 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 ):e192535.31050774 5 Bersanelli M , Buti S . From targeting the tumor to targeting the immune system: transversal challenges in oncology with the inhibition of the PD‐1/PD‐L1 axis. World J Clin Oncol. 2017;8 (1 ):37‐53.28246584 6 Postow MA , Sidlow R , Hellmann MD . Immune‐related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2018;378 (2 ):158‐168.29320654 7 Ghisoni E , Wicky A , Bouchaab H , et al. Late‐onset and long‐lasting immune‐related adverse events from immune checkpoint‐inhibitors: an overlooked aspect in immunotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2021;149 :153‐164.33865201 8 Ruste V , Goldschmidt V , Laparra A , et al. The determinants of very severe immune‐related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective study of the French REISAMIC registry. Eur J Cancer. 2021;158 :217‐224.34627664 9 Jing Y , Liu J , Ye Y , et al. Multi‐omics prediction of immune‐related adverse events during checkpoint immunotherapy. Nat Commun. 2020;11 (1 ):4946.33009409 10 Weidhaas J , Marco N , Scheffler AW , et al. Germline biomarkers predict toxicity to anti‐PD1/PDL1 checkpoint therapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10 (2 ):e003625.35115362 11 Okada N , Matsuoka R , Sakurada T , et al. Risk factors of immune checkpoint inhibitor‐related interstitial lung disease in patients with lung cancer: a single‐institution retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2020;10 (1 ):13773.32792640 12 Zeng X , Zhu S , Xu C , et al. Effect of comorbidity on outcomes of patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer undergoing anti‐PD1 immunotherapy. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26 :e922576.32893263 13 Suazo‐Zepeda E , Bokern M , Vinke PC , Hiltermann TJN , de Bock GH , Sidorenkov G . Risk factors for adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021;70 (11 ):3069‐3080.34195862 14 Kalinich M , Murphy W , Wongvibulsin S , et al. Prediction of severe immune‐related adverse events requiring hospital admission in patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors: study of a population level insurance claims database from the USA. J Immunother Cancer. 2021;9 (3 ):e001935.33789879 15 Baldini C , Martin Romano P , Voisin AL , et al. Impact of aging on immune‐related adverse events generated by anti‐programmed death (ligand)PD‐(L)1 therapies. Eur J Cancer. 2020;129 :71‐79.32143106 16 Ksienski D , Wai ES , Croteau NS , et al. Association of age with differences in immune related adverse events and survival of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer receiving pembrolizumab or nivolumab. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11 (5 ):807‐813.31937494 17 Ksienski D , Truong PT , Croteau NS , et al. Immune related adverse events and treatment discontinuation in patients older and younger than 75 years with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13 (2 ):220‐227.34654653 18 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 ):224‐233.31427722 19 Stege CAM , van der Holt B , Dinmohamed AG , et al. Validation of the FIRST simplified frailty scale using the ECOG performance status instead of patient‐reported activities. Leukemia. 2020;34 (7 ):1964‐1966.31969670 20 Mian HS , Giri S , Wildes TM , et al. External validation of the FIRST trial's simplified frailty score in a population‐based cohort. Leukemia. 2021;35 (6 ):1823‐1827.33839738 21 Veluswamy RR , Levy B , Wisnivesky JP . Chemotherapy in elderly patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016;22 (4 ):336‐343.27100301 22 Sweeney CJ , Zhu J , Sandler AB , et al. Outcome of patients with a performance status of 2 in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E1594: a phase II trial in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92 (10 ):2639‐2647.11745199 23 Edwards MJ , Campbell ID , Lawrenson RA , Kuper‐Hommel MJ . Influence of comorbidity on chemotherapy use for early breast cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165 (1 ):17‐39.28528451 24 Basak EA , Vermeer NS , de Joode K , et al. Associations between patient and disease characteristics and severe adverse events during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: an observational study. Eur J Cancer. 2022;174 :113‐120.35988409 25 Bastiaannet E , Battisti N , Loh KP , et al. Immunotherapy and targeted therapies in older patients with advanced melanoma; Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10 (3 ):389‐397.30025821 26 von Itzstein MS , Gonugunta AS , Mayo HG , Minna JD , Gerber DE . Immunotherapy use in patients with lung cancer and comorbidities. Cancer J. 2020;26 (6 ):525‐536.33298724 27 Cortellini A , Buti S , Santini D , et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with advanced cancer and pre‐existing autoimmune diseases treated with anti‐programmed death‐1 immunotherapy: a real‐world transverse study. Oncologist. 2019;24 (6 ):e327‐e337.30796151 28 Leonardi GC , Gainor JF , Altan M , et al. Safety of programmed death‐1 pathway inhibitors among patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer and preexisting autoimmune disorders. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36 (19 ):1905‐1912.29746230 29 Caires‐Lima R , Cayres K , Protásio B , et al. Palliative chemotherapy outcomes in patients with ECOG‐PS higher than 1. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12 :831.29743951 30 Crosara Teixeira M , Marques DF , Ferrari AC , et al. The effects of palliative chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with an ECOG performance status of 3 and 4. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2015;14 (1 ):52‐57.25442812 31 Krishnan M , Kasinath P , High R , Yu F , Teply BA . Impact of performance status on response and survival among patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors for advanced solid tumors. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18 (1 ):e175‐e182.34351819 32 Tomasik B , Bieńkowski M , Braun M , Popat S , Dziadziuszko R . Effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS score ≥2—systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lung Cancer. 2021;158 :97‐106.34144405 33 Sakakida T , Ishikawa T , Uchino J , et al. Safety and tolerability of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in elderly and frail patients with advanced malignancies. Oncol Lett. 2020;20 (4 ):14.32774487 34 Bellera CA , Rainfray M , Mathoulin‐Pélissier S , et al. Screening older cancer patients: first evaluation of the G‐8 geriatric screening tool. Ann Oncol. 2012;23 (8 ):2166‐2172.22250183 35 Dottorini L , Catena L , Sarno I , et al. The role of Geriatric screening tool (G8) in predicting side effect in older patients during therapy with aromatase inhibitor. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10 (2 ):356‐358.30333087 36 Middelburg JG , Mast ME , de Kroon M , et al. Timed get up and go test and geriatric 8 scores and the association with (chemo‐)radiation therapy noncompliance and acute toxicity in elderly cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98 (4 ):843‐849.28366575 37 Baitar A , van Fraeyenhove F , Vandebroek A , et al. Geriatric screening results and the association with severe treatment toxicity after the first cycle of (radio)chemotherapy. J Geriatr Oncol. 2014;5 (2 ):179‐184.24495700 38 Bruijnen CP , Koldenhof JJ , Verheijden RJ , et al. Frailty and checkpoint inhibitor toxicity in older patients with melanoma. Cancer. 2022;128 :2746‐2752.35439334 39 Welaya K , Loh KP , Messing S , et al. Geriatric assessment and treatment outcomes in older adults with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11 (3 ):523‐528.31175042 40 Wang DY , Salem JE , Cohen JV , et al. Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4 (12 ):1721‐1728.30242316