Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34677815›Full record

SynthesisTargeted oncology2021

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Neil K Mehta, Andraia R Li, Shaun A Nguyen, John M Kaczmar, David M Neskey, Terry A Day

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Targeted oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Neil K MehtaDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. mehtan@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3393-0506
Andraia R LiDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Shaun A NguyenDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
John M KaczmarDepartment of Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
David M NeskeyDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Terry A DayDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResults of early trials led to FDA approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced and recurrent/metastatic (R/M) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Updated data from these trials are pending and extent of survival outcomes is undetermined.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of ICIs in advanced CSCC, comprising locally advanced (LA), locoregionally advanced (LR), and recurrent or metastatic (R/M) disease. PATIENTS AND

methodsA systematic review of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, OVID, Cochrane) and meta-analysis of proportions was performed. Phase I and II prospective clinical trials were included.

resultsSix trials evaluating cemiplimab (n = 3) and pembrolizumab (n = 3) were eligible for inclusion. Overall survival (OS) was not reached at data-cutoff. Pooled analysis of 392 patients demonstrated that ICIs conferred an objective response rate (ORR) of 42.43% (95% CI 37.53-47.45) and disease control rate (DCR) of 58.05% (95% CI 53.04-62.95). Patients with LR or distant metastatic lesions achieved equivalent ORRs and DCRs. Duration of response (DOR) was not reached in all trials and 92% of all responders continued to have therapeutic response at data cut-off. Tolerability was favorable, with only 27.12% (95% CI 10.89-47.38) of patients experiencing grade ≥ 3 adverse events.

conclusionSurgical treatment of CSCC remains the guideline-based standard of care for curative intent of local, LA, and LR disease. ICIs demonstrate promising results for LA, LR, and R/M CSCC not amenable to surgery. Endpoints assessing survival and durability of response have not been reached, warranting additional trials exploring neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy in combination with local treatment.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellSkin NeoplasmsHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesImmune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.