Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33807108›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Immune Checkpoints Inhibitors and Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Phase III Clinical Trials.

Hsiao-Ling Chen, Vinson Wai-Shun Chan, Yu-Kang Tu, Erica On-Ting Chan, Hsiu-Mei Chang, Yung-Shun Juan, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Hsiang Ying Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. 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
1.0field-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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Hsiao-Ling ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung 801, Taiwan.
Vinson Wai-Shun ChanSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK.
Yu-Kang TuInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 100, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2461-474X
Erica On-Ting ChanS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Hsiu-Mei ChangDepartment of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung 801, Taiwan.
Yung-Shun JuanDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung 801, Taiwan.
Jeremy Yuen-Chun TeohS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Hsiang Ying LeeDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung 801, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-2405-4874
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKKaohsiung Medical University · TWKaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital · TWNational Taiwan University · TWUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) were considered as second-line treatments in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) based on better survival benefit and safety profile than chemotherapy (CTX). We aimed to assess different ICIs regimens in the efficacy and safety for front-line treatments in mUC patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed and Phase II-III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ICIs for patients with mUC were included. The outcome was evaluated by overall survival (OS), progression of free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3-5 adverse events. Network meta-analysis was used to estimate the effect size. Surface under cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) were applied to rank the included treatments for each outcome. Results: The survival benefit of a single ICI was non-inferiority to chemotherapy (CTX). Although no superior effects were indicated, combination therapy (either ICIs plus CTX or ICIs plus ICIs) presented better OS compared with CTX alone. In terms of PFS, combination therapy produced a noticeable benefit over CTX. Regarding the SUCRA ranking, atezolizumab plus CTX was associated with the best ranking for OS and pembrolizumab plus CTX was the best in PFS. In terms of safety, a single ICI had better safety profile than CTX and combination therapy had a similar risk of grade 3-5 adverse events with CTX. Conclusions: Our NMA results revealed that combination therapy has better ranking compared with monotherapy in OS and acceptable AEs. ICIs alone present non-inferior OS but a lower incidence of AEs compared with CTX.

Indexed as

chemotherapyimmune checkpoints inhibitorsnetwork meta-analysisurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33807108
PMCPMC8005008
OpenAlexW3136303113

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.