Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33940346›Full record

SynthesisESMO open2021

The prognostic impact of tumor mutational burden (TMB) in the first-line management of advanced non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A Galvano, V Gristina, U Malapelle, P Pisapia, F Pepe, N Barraco, M Castiglia, A Perez, C Rolfo, G Troncone and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESMO open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The value ofFrontiers in oncology · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

A GalvanoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
V GristinaDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
U MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
P PisapiaDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
F PepeDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
N BarracoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
M CastigliaDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
A PerezDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
C RolfoMarlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
G TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
A RussoDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.russo@usa.net.
V BazanDepartment of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
University of Palermo · ITUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of tumor mutational burden (TMB) is still debated for selecting advanced non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who might benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Of note, TMB failed to predict a benefit in overall survival (OS) among such patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy outcomes among first-line immune-oncology (IO) agents versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) within two subgroups (TMB-low and TMB-high on either tissue or blood). We collected hazard ratios (HRs) to evaluate the association for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, with the relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used as an association measure for objective response rate (ORR).

resultsEight different cohorts of five randomized controlled phase III studies (3848 patients) were analyzed. In TMB-high patients, IO agents were associated with improved ORR (RRs 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.66), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.79) and OS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77) when compared with CT, thus suggesting a possible predictive role of high TMB for IO regimens. In TMB-low patients, the IO strategy did not lead to any significant benefit in survival and activity, whereas the pooled results of both ORR and PFS were intriguingly associated with a statistical significance in favor of CT.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis resulted in a proven benefit in OS in favor of IO agents in the TMB-high population. Although more prospective data are warranted, we postulated the hypothesis that monitoring TMB, in addition to the existing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level, could represent the preferable option for future clinical research in the first-line management of advanced non-oncogene addicted NSCLC patients.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansPrognosisProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicICIsmeta-analysisNSCLCprognosticTMB

Identifiers

PMID33940346
PMCPMC8111593
OpenAlexW3157770914

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.