Prognostic value of existing scoring systems for early mortality in phase I immunotherapy trials: a head-to-head real-world cohort study - Report - MDSpire

Evaluating the Prognostic Utility of Established Scoring Systems for Early Mortality in Phase I Immunotherapy Trials: A Comparative Real-World Cohort Analysis

  • By

  • Paloma Sangro

  • Ana Landa-Magdalena

  • Miguel Sogbe

  • Teresa Zumarraga

  • Ignacio Matos

  • Mariano Ponz-Sarvise

  • Marina Crespo

  • María Esperanza Rodriguez-Ruiz

  • Anna Vilalta-Lacarra

  • Eduardo Castañón

  • July 20, 2026

Share

Clinical Report: Evaluating Prognostic Utility of Scoring Systems in Immunotherapy Trials

Overview

This study evaluates the prognostic performance of five established scoring systems for early mortality in phase I immunotherapy trials. Despite all scores demonstrating significant prognostic stratification, none were able to identify patients with a median overall survival below three months.

Background

Phase I clinical trials are crucial for assessing novel oncologic therapies, yet some patients may die before reaching the expected survival threshold of three months. This raises ethical concerns regarding patient selection and the need for validated prognostic tools to guide enrollment decisions. The study compares five prognostic scores to assess their effectiveness in predicting early mortality in this context.

Data Highlights

ScoreC-index3-month AUC
RMH0.58-
GRIm0.55-
LIPI0.66-
PIPO0.63-
ROPRO0.690.76

Key Findings

  • Median overall survival (OS) for the cohort was 9.08 months.
  • All five prognostic scores demonstrated statistically significant prognostic stratification.
  • The ROPRO score had the highest AUC at 3 months (0.76).
  • No score was able to identify a subgroup of patients with a median OS below 3 months.

Clinical Implications

The study highlights the limitations of existing prognostic scores in identifying patients at high risk of early mortality in phase I trials. Clinicians should consider these scores as tools for stratification.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of prognostic scores reveals their utility in stratifying patients.

Related Resources & Content

  1. Blood Cancer Journal, 2022 -- Development of a Scoring System for Older AML Patients Aged 70 and Above Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy
  2. Blood Cancer Journal, 2024 -- A Streamlined Two-Factor Prognostic Scoring System for Newly Diagnosed Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients
  3. Blood Cancer Journal, 2025 -- Enhancement and Assessment of the Global Metabolic Prognostic Index for CD19 CAR-T Therapy in Patients with Large B-Cell Lymphoma
  4. Frontiers in Oncology, 2026 -- Prognostic Impact of Early Disease Progression and Early Mortality in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
  5. ASCO, 2025 -- ASCO Reaffirms Therapeutic Role of Phase I Clinical Trials as Critical Component in Cancer Drug Development
  6. PMC, 2024 -- Prognostic Significance of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Score in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  7. PMC, 2024 -- The lung immune prognostic index as a predictive biomarker in urological malignancies undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy
  8. ASCO Reaffirms Therapeutic Role of Phase I Clinical Trials as Critical Component in Cancer Drug Development - ASCO
  9. Prognostic Significance of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Score in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - PMC
  10. The lung immune prognostic index as a predictive biomarker in urological malignancies undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy - PMC

Original Source(s)

Related Content