Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33718135›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Association of Survival and Immune-Related Adverse Events With Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and Anti-CTLA-4 Inhibitors, Alone or Their Combination for the Treatment of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 13 Clinical Trials.

Leyin Zhang, Leitao Sun, Yiwen Zhou, Jieru Yu, Yingying Lin, Harpreet S Wasan, Minhe Shen, Shanming Ruan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Leyin ZhangThe First Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Leitao SunDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Yiwen ZhouThe Second Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Jieru YuCollege of Basic Medical Science, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Yingying LinThe First Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Harpreet S WasanDepartment of Cancer Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Minhe ShenDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Shanming RuanDepartment of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CNImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer, with sustained high mortality, is a worldwide threat to public health. Despite the survival benefit over conventional therapies shown in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), only a minority of patients benefit from single ICI. But combination therapy holds the promise of achieving better efficacy over monotherapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI-based combination therapy for cancer.

methodsA search was conducted to retrieve relevant studies in electronic databases and major conferences. Two investigators independently performed data extraction, making a systematic data extraction, assembly, analysis and interpretation to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), all and high grade immune related adverse events (IRAEs) between combination therapy and monotherapy. Therefore, only the studies satisfying the criteria were included. Finally, we performed subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analysis to examine the heterogeneity and bias of resources.

resultsA total of 2,532 patients from thirteen studies were enrolled. Compared to ICI alone, combination therapy, with a high risk and high grade IRAEs for the majority of all, offers a better survival benefit (OS: HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.98; PFS: HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.90) and objective response (ORR: RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.60).

conclusionsICI-based combination therapy was confirmed as the optimum treatment for cancer, especially when using specific dosage and regimen to treat certain tumor types with no absolute demand for the detection of PD-L1 expression. Meanwhile, attention should also be paid on potential toxicity, especially the IRAEs.

Indexed as

cancercombination therapyefficacyimmune checkpoint inhibitorimmune-related adverse eventssystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID33718135
PMCPMC7947606
OpenAlexW3135523592

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.