Two published systematic reviews of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) toxicity, made interactive — how often irAEs occur, and which factors change the risk.
Source: Jayathilaka B, Mian F, Franchini F, Au-Yeung G, IJzerman M.
Cancer and treatment specific incidence rates of immune-related adverse events induced by immune
checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review. British Journal of Cancer 2025;132:51–57
(doi:10.1038/s41416-024-02887-1)
— Supplementary Table S2, 293 studies published 2017–2021.
Every dot is one published study's reported event rate — patients with an irAE divided by patients treated with ICIs. The bar behind each row spans the interquartile range, the line marks the median. Colour shows what kind of evidence the estimate comes from.
No studies match these filters.
Underlying studies (table view)
irAE type
Study
Design
Cancer
Regimen
irAE
Treated
Rate %
How to read this — and what it cannot tell you
These are crude proportions, not pooled estimates. Each dot is one study's own reported rate;
the median and interquartile range describe the spread across studies, and are not a meta-analysis.
Denominators are not comparable. Studies differ in follow-up, in how actively irAE were sought,
and in whether the denominator is everyone treated or a selected subgroup.
Grade definitions vary. "High grade" generally means CTCAE grade 3 or above, but not every study
reports it the same way, and grade-specific subsets are shown separately.
The evidence base is overwhelmingly retrospective. That is itself a finding: filter to trials or
registries and most rows thin out to a handful of studies.
Studies can appear more than once when they report several irAE types, and patient populations
may overlap between studies from the same centre.
Source: Jayathilaka B, Mian F, Cockwill J, Franchini F, Au-Yeung G, IJzerman M.
Analysis of risk factors for immune-related adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitor
treatment in cancer: a comprehensive systematic review. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
2024;207:104601 (doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104601)
— Supplementary Table S5, 293 studies, 1,633 reported factor–irAE associations.
Which characteristics change the risk of an irAE? The review screened every study for reported
associations between patient, disease, treatment and laboratory factors and irAE occurrence. Each bar is one candidate risk factor:
the filled part is the share of studies that reported a statistically significant association (in either direction); the number is
how many studies examined it. Read signal and volume together — a high share among few studies is weak evidence.
Full study-level extraction (downloads)
Every study × risk-factor assessment behind this map, from Supplementary Table S5.
“Identified” means an association was reported, not its direction or size. A factor may raise or lower risk; both count. Age, notably, showed opposing associations across studies.
Signal without volume is fragile. Factors examined by only a handful of studies are statistically underpowered — treat high percentages on small n with caution.
Not a meta-analysis. These are counts of what individual studies reported, using heterogeneous designs, definitions and analysis methods.
Testing bias. A factor is counted only where a study chose to test it; absence here is not evidence of no effect.