SynthesisScientific reports2018
Indirect comparison of efficacy and safety between immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of antiangiogenic agents in first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in the era of immunotherapy.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Immune-related adverse events of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors: a single center experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we conducted an indirect comparison analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors with those of antiangiogenic therapy-two effective treatment methods for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eligible randomised control trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, antiangiogenic therapy, and doublet platinum-based therapy published up to July 2017 were comprehensively analysed. Through the indirect comparison analysis of 37 trials involving 16810 patients, treatments were compared for overall survival (OS) and grade 3-5 adverse events. For first-line treatment, the use of pembrolizumab alone (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-0.91) and a combination of bevacizumab and doublet platinum-based therapy (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.99) demonstrated substantial survival benefits compared with doublet platinum-based therapy. For subsequent treatment, nivolumab may provide higher efficacy and lower toxicity than antiangiogenic therapy. Overall, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may be superior to antiangiogenic therapy in terms of OS and grade 3-5 adverse events. This meta-analysis suggests that pembrolizumab and nivolumab might be favourable choices for first-line and subsequent treatment, respectively, for patients with advanced NSCLC. Additional randomised control trials are required for a comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes among regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.