SynthesisDrug design, development and therapy2018
Comparisons of therapeutic efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus GM-CSF versus ipilimumab alone in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of outcomes.
Synthesis in Drug design, development and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- GM-CSF, G-CSF or no cytokine therapy with anti-GD2 immunotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma.International journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Recombinant GM-CSF for diseases of GM-CSF insufficiency: Correcting dysfunctional mononuclear phagocyte disorders.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Human immunology and immunotherapy: main achievements and challenges.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2021Review
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Therapy-Induced Tumor Cell Death: Friend or Foe of Immunotherapy?Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Risk of colitis in immune checkpoint inhibitors and in chemotherapy/placebo for solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent clinical studies have shown that initial therapy with combined cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blockade and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-based immunotherapies can enhance the antitumor efficacy of this approach. A key unanswered question is whether systemic GM-CSF enhances CTLA-4 blockade. Thus, the objective of this study was taking a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effect of ipilimumab plus GM-CSF versus ipilimumab alone on overall response, overall survival, and progression-free survival, as well as the risk of adverse events (AEs) in patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsSearches were made in electronic databases PubMed and Embase, and conference abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology from 2000 to 2017. Statistical analyses were carried out using either random-effects or fixed-effects models according to the heterogeneity of eligible studies.
resultsSix trials comprising of 445 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Combination group was superior to the ipilimumab alone in overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival rate (combined relative risk [RR]=1.34, 95% CI: 1.24-1.45,
conclusionThese data suggested that the combination of ipilimumab and GM-CSF was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival and lower high-grade toxicities, but there is no difference in overall response rate and progression-free survival among the cancer patients. Therefore, large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to summarize and analyze the data to draw a more convincing conclusion.
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.