SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2019
Sex-Based Heterogeneity in Response to Lung Cancer Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
152 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 274 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex, Timing, and Outcomes of Curative-Intent Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Immunotherapy in advanced gastroesophageal cancers: A meta-analysis of sex-based outcomes in overall survival.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Sex-based responses to immunotherapy in esophageal cancer: insights from a meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Social determinants of health in studies using PROMs to assess toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Sex and gender influence on adverse events for melanoma patients: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Sex differences in adverse events among cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: the MOUSEION-07 systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Heterogeneity between subgroups of first-line chemoimmunotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Sex difference in response to non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy: an updated meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Association between sex and outcomes in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer receiving combination chemoimmunotherapy as a first-line therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.European journal of medical research · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Quality of Life in Cancer Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of histology on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of concomitant proton pump inhibitor use on immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy among patients with advanced cancer.Oncoimmunology · 2021Pooled it
- A meta-analysis comparing responses of Asian versus non-Asian cancer patients to PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor-based therapy.Oncoimmunology · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of Age on the Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Combination Therapy for Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Immunotherapy: From Advanced NSCLC to Early Stages, an Evolving Concept.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Multipeptide vaccines for melanoma in the adjuvant setting: long-term survival outcomes and post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase II trial.Nature communications · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in female patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical attribute-based risk matrix for prognostication in immunotherapy-treated non-small cell lung cancer.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Sex-based differences in tolerability of developmental antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).ESMO open · 2026Article
92 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously showed that therapy with anti-checkpoints T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) agents was more effective for men as compared with women. However, because the sex-dimorphism of the immune system is complex, involving multiple elements of immune responses, it is possible that women could derive larger benefit than men from strategies other than therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone. Here we investigated whether women could derive larger benefit than men from the combination of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1.
methodsWe performed two meta-analyses. The first included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy to assess different efficacy between men and women. The second included all RCTs of first-line systemic treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer testing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 given either alone or combined with chemotherapy to assess the different efficacy of these two immunotherapeutic strategies according to patients' sex. For each RCT included in the two meta-analyses, first, a trial-specific ratio of hazard ratios (HRs) was calculated from the ratio of the reported hazard ratios in men and in women; second, these trial-specific ratios of hazard ratios were combined across trials using a random-effects model to obtain a pooled hazard ratios ratio. A pooled HRs ratio estimate lower than 1 indicates a greater treatment effect in men, and higher than 1 a greater effect in women.
resultsEight RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios (OS-HRs) comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.87) for men and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.67) for women. The pooled ratio of the overall survival hazard ratios reported in men vs women was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.21 to 2.01), indicating a statistically significant greater effect for women. Six RCTs were included in the second meta-analysis: three tested an anti-PD-1 alone, whereas three RCTs tested anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios were 0.78 (95% CI = 0.60 to 1.00) in men and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.19) in women for anti-PD-1 alone, compared with 0.76 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.91) in men and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.76) in women for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled ratio of overall survival hazard ratios was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.06) for anti-PD-1 alone, indicating a greater effect in men, and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.16 to 2.49) for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, indicating a greater effect in women.
conclusionWomen with advanced lung cancer derived a statistically significantly larger benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 as compared with men.
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.