Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32049290›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2020

Assessment of Clinical Activity of PD-1 Checkpoint Inhibitor Combination Therapies Reported in Clinical Trials.

Emmett V Schmidt, Michael J Chisamore, Marya F Chaney, Marie E Maradeo, James Anderson, Gretchen A Baltus, Elaine M Pinheiro, Victor N Uebele

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Potent therapeutic strategy in gastric cancer with microsatellite instability-high and/or deficient mismatch repair.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emmett V SchmidtMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Michael J ChisamoreMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Marya F ChaneyMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Marie E MaradeoMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
James AndersonMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Gretchen A BaltusMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Elaine M PinheiroMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Victor N UebeleMerck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Because cancer drugs given in combination have the potential for increased tumor-cell killing, finding the best combination partners for programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitors could improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Objective: To identify optimal strategies for combining PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors with other cancer therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compiled 319 results from 98 clinical trials testing PD-1 pathway inhibitors alone or in combination with other agents among 24 915 patients with metastatic cancer. All clinical trials had a primary completion date before September 16, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to August 2019. Exposures: Patients with metastatic cancer were treated with PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or with other cancer therapies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical activity was measured as objective response rates (ORRs). Combination measures included fold change from monotherapy to combination ORR, comparison of observed combination ORRs with estimated combination ORRs based on independent additivity, and a computational model to assess clinical synergy. To assess whether the ORRs of various combinations may be greater than the independent contribution of each agent, a Bliss independent activity model was used to analyze observed combination ORRs, and a Z score, measuring the difference between observed and calculated ORRs, was generated. Results: In 319 results from 98 clinical trials among 24 915 patients, ORRs for monotherapy were compared with combination data by indication and line of therapy, demonstrating an increased ORR in 105 of 127 results (82.7%) where ORRs were available for both PD-1 pathway inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy. A few combinations showed increases above the Bliss-estimated activity, possibly identifying limited clinical synergy. The mean (SD) Z score for all trials was 0.0430 (0.0243). The mean (SD) Z score was 0.0923 (0.0628) for platinum chemotherapy regimen combinations, 0.0547 (0.0821) for vascular endothelial growth factor or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations, 0.0893 (0.086) for indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase inhibitor combinations, and 0.0558 (0.0849) for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitor combinations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, most combination trials showed the expected benefit of combining 2 active anticancer agents, but few combination trials showed clinical synergy according to the Bliss independent activity model.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasmsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorTreatment OutcomePDCD1 protein, humanProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptor

Identifiers

PMID32049290
PMCPMC12549068
OpenAlexW3005661629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.