Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239030›Full record

SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2020

Agnostic evaluation of ipilimumab and nivolumab association: a metanalysis.

Paolo Marchetti, Andrea Botticelli, Antonio Paolo Ascierto, Giuseppe Curigliano, Diana Giannarelli

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paolo MarchettiDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Sant'Andrea Hospital, IDI IRCSS, Rome, Italy.
Andrea BotticelliDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza, University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, Sant'Andrea Hospital, IDI IRCSS, Rome, Italy. andrea.botticelli@uniroma1.it.ORCID 0000-0002-6425-9893
Antonio Paolo AsciertoInstituto Nazionale Tumori Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Fondazione Pascale, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe CuriglianoDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano and European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milano, Italy.
Diana GiannarelliBiostatistics Unit, National Cancer Institute Regina Elena IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIpilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively,have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintains a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to nivolumab alone. Hence, the added value of ipilimumab in the combination has not clearly been established yet. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of the combination strategy compared to the single agent therapy. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of Phase I-II-III Clinical Trials, published from 2010 up to 2020, in which the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was compared to nivolumab alone. We extracted ORR, OS and PFS HR on the basis of treatment from the subgroup analysis of each trial.

resultsA total of 7 trials were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, 1313 patients were treated with the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination compared to 1110 patients treated with nivolumabalone. All trials reported the Objective response rate(ORR), no heterogeneity was found among studies and the pooled Odds Ratio was highly in favor of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination with respect to nivolumab alone (1.683; 95% CI: 1.407-2.012; P < 0.0001). Three studies were considered for Progression free survival (PFS) analysis, and the pooled Hazard Ratio favored the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.807; 95% CI: 0.719-0.907; P < 0.0001). The Overall survival(OS) endpoint was considered only in 2 trials, and the pooled HR favored, also in this case, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.87; 95% CI: 0.763-0.997; P = 0.045).

conclusionsThe combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab seems to be superior to nivolumab alone in cancer patients, regardless of histology.

Indexed as

MelanomaNivolumabAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHumansIpilimumabProgression-Free SurvivalIpilimumabNivolumabAgnostic approvalCombination immunotherapyImmunotherapyIpilimumabNivolumab

Identifiers

PMID33239030
PMCPMC7688006
OpenAlexW3107372043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.